Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Truth About Media Bias
Every reporter has political beliefs
When I announced last week that I was leaving ABC for Fox, some readers complained about my "bias." I replied: "Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine."
Look at today's burning issue: President Obama's pledge to redesign 15 percent of the economy. Virtually every reporter calls his health care plan "reform." But dictionaries define reform as "improvement." So before they present any evidence, reporters pronounce Obama's plan an improvement. Isn't that bias?
The New York Times took its bias to an absurd length. Its page-one story on the big anti-big-government rally in Washington, D.C., referred to "protests that began with an opposition to health care. ..."
Apparently, in the Times reporter's and editors' view, opponents of the Obama health care plan oppose health care itself. (The online article was later changed.)
Economic-policy reporters usually present the views of supporters of new regulations as objective and public-spirited. For a contrary view, at best they'll ask a Republican or a representative of the regulated business, who is portrayed as self-serving. (Republicans tend to offer a watered-down version of the Democrats' proposals.)
A recent Bloomberg report on President Obama's plans to rewrite financial regulations is typical: "Obama has proposed new regulations overseeing the systemic risk posed by large financial institutions." The reporter quoted White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers in support of the plan. Although there are plenty of reasons to doubt that regulators are competent at judging systemic risk, no skeptical economist was quoted. Readers are led to believe the program is perfectly feasible.
Most reporting on the "stimulus" package has the same flaw. Just to call it "stimulus" is to editorialize, since the idea that government spending can truly stimulate an economy is at best doubtful. Many good economists say it can't be done. After all, the money is taken from somewhere else. But the economists rarely are quoted.
In addition, reporters seem to think they've done their job if they merely describe the intentions behind the proposed "reform." But the burden of proof should be on the sponsors of regulation and spending. They should have to make a convincing case that their new rules are superior to the free market. Who cares about intentions?
Fuel-efficiency standards, intended to save gasoline, give us less crashworthy cars, so more people die. Subsidies to American farmers destroy Third World markets. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged shaky subprime mortgages and helped cause the housing and financial turmoil.
The long list of bad results that have emerged from well-intended regulation ought to dim reporters' enthusiasm. But it hasn't.
I admit that my guiding political and economic philosophy—libertarianism—now shapes my reporting, in this way: It prompts me to ask questions that others don't ask.
I don't claim to be the expert. But some of my colleagues who write about business know nothing about economics. Many are comically hostile to profit—they dismiss it as "greed" (although they bargain for the highest salaries possible).
On my former ABC blog, some people called me a biased "conservative."
"Your (sic) a shill anyways John. dont (sic) let the door hit you in the you know what."
I'm surprised that the self-described enemies of intolerance can't tolerate even one MSM reporter who doesn't share their statist premises. The interventionist state has been the status quo for generations, so I must be something other than "conservative." "Liberal" is what my philosophy used to be called. It's the statists who are the reactionaries.
MNG|9.24.09 @ 12:09PM|#
"Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I
am upfront about mine"
We are all relativists now!
What The|9.24.09 @ 12:18PM|#
Good for him and good for us. FOX News is kicking ass lately for a reason. Americans seem to be waking up to the fact that there aren't just two (red and blue) sides to an issue, that complex political and economic problems can't be discussed in five-second sound bites and snarky, childish propaganda (yeah, I'm looking at you, MSNBC). Not that FOX News isn't still saddled with the useless Sean Hannity and possibly insane Glen Beck, but even Bill O'Reilly has mellowed to the point of being almost agreeable and often quite rational.
|9.24.09 @ 12:19PM|#
Yeah, I'm sure he'll be fair and balanced and go after the
Republican Party as much as going after the Democrats.
Proudly serve your corporate masters, John.
Maybe they'll offer you some scraps from their dinner table in
return!
Tomcat1066|9.24.09 @ 12:20PM|#
When you know what the reporter's bias is, it's easier to filter
the content. I can read a liberal blog easier than I can MSM
sources, because I know where they're coming from.
John,
Best of luck at Fox. I hate it that you won't be at ABC, but I
sincerely hope that you and Judge Napolitano can help advance
libertarian ideals regardless of where you are.
|9.24.09 @ 12:22PM|#
Beats kissing the government's ass like most of the media (left
and right-biased), doesn't it?
The press serves a lot of functions, but its most important role is
to apply constant scrutiny to government action and to reveal to
the world anything that even hints at corruption, abuse of power,
etc. It is absolutely and abundantly clear that virtually no
mainstream outlet is doing that on a consistent basis. That goes
for more conservative outlets like Fox, too.
Citizen Nothing|9.24.09 @ 12:25PM|#
We are all relativists now!
Giving the context, what can this possibly mean?
|9.24.09 @ 12:29PM|#
Fox News kissed the Government's ass when Bush was in power and
if/when the Republicans come back to power, John Stossel will
either serve a nice stew of Government propaganda or be
fired.
Next on Fox News:
Why wiretapping is good for business.
John Stossel looks at government intrusion in our lives that's
actually good for us!
|9.24.09 @ 12:32PM|#
John,
FOX is chuck full of Obama hatin yammerers. Right now they're all
on the big government band wagon. Stay off! Or you'll be locked in
the same pigeon hole.
At fox you need to hammer on the Drug War, and immigration. IF,
Your new masters will allow it. But it's the only way you'll be of
any use to anyone.
Otherwise you should load up on some of that good National Flood
Insurance, buy a big beach front house, and enjoy your golden
years.
|9.24.09 @ 12:41PM|#
Next on Fox:
John Stossel on why banning abortions and blocking gay marriage is
good for you!
Plus: Are there different kinds of brown, non-Christian hostiles
who hate our freedumbs out there?
Jordan|9.24.09 @ 12:46PM|#
Fox News kissed the Government's ass when Bush was in power and if/when the Republicans come back to power, John Stossel will either serve a nice stew of Government propaganda or be fired.
FOX is chuck full of Obama hatin yammerers. Right now they're all on the big government band wagon. Stay off! Or you'll be locked in the same pigeon hole.
Yawn. Napolitano does just fine, and so will Stossel.
iamse7en|9.24.09 @ 12:50PM|#
I'm really excited for Stossel's new show.
I miss his daily blog, which hasn't been updated since 9/11. It
will continue on FOX's site, but I don't like this overlapping
period.
I'm a conservative (though quite libertarian leaning) who is weary
of legalizing prostitution and hard drugs, but still open to be
convinced. I believe Abortion is murder, and the liberalization of
abortion laws have contributed to greater out-of-wedlock
pregnancies, which contributes to the destruction of that
institution that makes our economy and nation strongest: families.
The statistics on children from single-parent homes are quite
blatant and hard to argue. I don't believe centrists can social
engineer a country to a perfect-family-based one, but people
respond to incentives, and when a young girl knows she can always
get an abortion, she is less cautious about sleeping around, and
when she actually gets pregnant, she second-guesses herself, and
realizes that gov't handouts will help raise her child.
Mike M.|9.24.09 @ 12:51PM|#
Yawn. Napolitano does just fine, and so will
Stossel.
As does ultra-lib Geraldo Rivera, as did ultra-lib Alan Colmes for
many years, as does moderate Greta van Susteren, frequent liberal
guests like Juan Williams, etcetera etcetera.
I guess the Kos kids have rolled out of bed and logged on to the
computer.
iamse7en|9.24.09 @ 12:54PM|#
Mike M:
The point is that FOX is more tolerant of all ideas. That's why
Colmes, Williams, and Rivera do okay on FOX. You think the channel
should get rid of opposing viewpoints? ONLY pure libertarians? That
does nothing for the freedom movement. It's important to have their
viewpoints publicized and argued by statistics and reason.
Mike M.|9.24.09 @ 12:59PM|#
The point is that FOX is more tolerant of all ideas. That's
why Colmes, Williams, and Rivera do okay on FOX. You think the
channel should get rid of opposing viewpoints?
I know, and no, I don't think they should get rid of opposing
viewpoints.
It's the Kos kids who always put forth the claim that everyone on
FNC is a shill for the Republicans, and I was saying pretty much
exactly what you are.
|9.24.09 @ 1:00PM|#
iamse7en,
In KOS world anyone who appears on FOX is a sellout. The act of
even appearing on the network, even if you are espousing liberal
views, makes you a conservative shill. The liberal neurosis about
Fox is really pathetic.
Cliché Bandit|9.24.09 @ 1:01PM|#
It's important to have their viewpoints publicized and argued by
statistics and reason.
I do believe that is a legitimate "drink"!
It ties the room together
Ska|9.24.09 @ 1:08PM|#
I just want to see an episode about legalizing prostution with Stossel wearing a "Moustache rides - 25¢" t-shirt.
iamse7en|9.24.09 @ 1:09PM|#
Vocabulary Police:
weary |ˈwi(ə)rē|
adjective ( wearier , weariest )
• reluctant to see or experience any more of; tired of : she was
weary of their constant arguments | [in combination ] war-weary
Americans.
You're right, wary or leery would have been a much better choice.
Thanks.
Sean W. Malone|9.24.09 @ 1:26PM|#
It's so amusing that people somehow think that a reporter admitting his biases is less trustworthy than the ones who desperately pretend that they aren't. Honesty, apparently, isn't worth much.
classwarrior|9.24.09 @ 1:26PM|#
John, the problem is not your political beliefs, but the sloppiness and intellectual dishonesty that often characterize your arguments. I've worked as a teaching assistant at a university, and you would have had a hard time getting a good grade from me with the kind of work you usually do. Is intellectual rigor and honesty too much to expect from a guy paid over a million bucks a year for his thoughts? Just asking.
|9.24.09 @ 1:35PM|#
Classwarrior,
Just because you are too stupid or dogmatic to understand Mr.
Stossel's agruments, doesn't make the sloppy or dishonest. It just
makes you an unintelligent hack.
|9.24.09 @ 1:42PM|#
There's journalistic objectivity and then there's editorializing. If all you find yourself being able to do anymore is editorialize, then yes, FOX news is the place for you.
anti-class warrior|9.24.09 @ 1:43PM|#
Really? John's getting paid over a million bucks a year?
Questions that occur to me: how much do you get to charge people
for your thoughts, teaching assistant? Think you'd get paid more if
you were more rigorously honest with everyone about any unpopular
positions on the issues you might have?
|9.24.09 @ 1:45PM|#
"There's journalistic objectivity and then there's
editorializing. If all you find yourself being able to do anymore
is editorialize, then yes, FOX news is the place for you."
Because no one on MSNObama or CNN ever editorializes. No sire re.
Those and the WAPO and the NYT are strictly facts
organization.
Honestly, was that performance art?
Sean W. Malone|9.24.09 @ 1:47PM|#
"I've worked as a teaching assistant at a university, and
you would have had a hard time getting a good grade from me with
the kind of work you usually do."
I've worked as a TA too... at two universities in fact.
So hey, Classwarrior, how about you cite a real example of
intellectual rigor being missing from Stossel's work, compared
against other mainstream reporters and factoring in the effects of
the script & film editing process, influences of producers
& his research team.
Then, for the A+, why not give us all a full report on how
Stossel's accuracy scores against his peers - pick anyone you want;
Olberman, Maddow, Ariana Huffington, Wolf Blitzer... Whoever.
Isolated mistakes without a comparison to the overall standard of
journalism at large and to the frequency of mistakes by peers &
singular anecdotes will get you an F, as will any review which
avoids any understanding of the limits of television as a
journalistic medium.
Damandus|9.24.09 @ 1:48PM|#
Journalistic objectivity? What a joke! If you still believe in the old myth of objectivity in journalism, Keith Olbermann's probably got a slot on his hate show for you available at very reasonable rates. The rest of us will take Fox News and its open editorializing, thank you very much.
|9.24.09 @ 1:49PM|#
For the record, Stossel gets tripple bonus points for being able to pull off a stache in the 21st Century.
|9.24.09 @ 2:12PM|#
Not a big fan of Fox News, but I guess all the more reasons to
be glad about Stossel's move. He's one of the few bright lights in
the media and gosh knows they need some of that at Fox.
John Stossel is the best!!
Meta4|9.24.09 @ 2:43PM|#
"yeah, I'm looking at you, MSNBC"
I'm curious. Doesn't the MS in MSNBC stand for MicroSoft? And IIRC,
didn't Microsoft part ways with NBC a while back? If so, shoudn't
they have to drop th MS part of their name?
|9.24.09 @ 2:45PM|#
I agree that all reporters have bias, but the key is to have a
balanced editorial staff. Nearly all of the traditional news
sources have very liberal editorial bias, which is what gives them
their overall bias. Not to mention that the 'conservatives' they
bring on staff are all neoconservatives.
Fox succeeds not because it is Republican biased, but because it is
the only Republican biased major media outlet.
I still do not watch their programming, except on YouTube. I feel
they played a large role in the press's failure to investigate
anything the Bush administration was doing and their treatment of
Ron Paul during the presidential primaries is unacceptable. Sean
Hannity attacked Paul in a way that he attacked no other candidate,
and he did so because Paul is not a neocon. I am not into the Ron
Paul idolatry, but I do agree with him on a great many points, and
even if I did idolize him, that still wouldn't justify Hannity's
treatment.
If John Stossel wants me to watch his show, it'll have to be on
YouTube, or he can do his own independent show and I'll happily pay
$1.99 to download each episode, so long as I know he and his staff
are the only ones getting the money.
|9.24.09 @ 2:46PM|#
iamse7en,
It's not woolly. Nobody gets woolly. Women get weary. They don't
get woolly.
You know, I'd never considered this before, but Fox does
seem to be willing to provide a forum for morel libertarian voices.
That seems much less true of the other major news networks.
Huh.
Meta4|9.24.09 @ 2:48PM|#
"I'm a conservative (though quite libertarian leaning) who is
weary of legalizing prostitution and hard drugs, but still open to
be convinced"
Get this man some smack and a hooker, stat!
Meta4|9.24.09 @ 2:53PM|#
"Keith Olbermann's probably got a slot on his hate show"
Old sportscasters never die. They just move to MSNBC.
|9.24.09 @ 3:00PM|#
So hey, Classwarrior, how about you cite a real example of
intellectual rigor being missing from Stossel's work
Lol, Sean I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for this to
happen.
Citizen Nothing|9.24.09 @ 3:00PM|#
Hey, now, it's not like I was quoting from The Bodyguard or
Waterworld.
It's an undeniable fact that as the number of H&R comments
approaches infinity, the probability of a comparison involving
Waterworld approaches 1.
What The|9.24.09 @ 3:02PM|#
"Keith Olbermann's probably got a slot on his hate
show"
Between him and Rachel Maddow, which one has the slot? I'm betting
Olbermann.
Sean W. Malone|9.24.09 @ 3:05PM|#
No worries Faithkills, I've been breathing comfortably ever since my challenge was extended.
|9.24.09 @ 3:06PM|#
Actually, except for acts of commenting terrorism, I think the possibility of a Waterworld reference here is zero. Unless the world flooded or some dude showed up with gills or something too apropos like that.
highnumber|9.24.09 @ 3:06PM|#
If you still believe in the old myth of objectivity in
journalism, Keith Olbermann's probably got a slot on his hate show
for you available at very reasonable rates. The rest of us will
take Fox News and its open editorializing, thank you very
much.
Doesn't Fox call itself "Fair and Balanced"?
kolmogorov|9.24.09 @ 3:08PM|#
I agree that all reporters have a viewpoint and a bias and I'm glad to see it out front. However, I hate to see everyone with the same viewpoint ending up on the same venue. That makes it too easy for those who disagree with them to never even hear their arguments. What conservative routinely tunes into MSNBC, or liberal into Fox News (I can't bear to watch either of them... I'm still waiting for my channel)? By moving to Fox News, he'll just cease to exist so far as the people who need to hear him are concerned. Fox News is like a black hole for my liberal friends, many of whom have even deleted it from their channels. I'm sure it'll be more pleasant for him, but I predict a very sharp decline in his actual influence.
Lester Hunt|9.24.09 @ 3:09PM|#
Bias?? John does opinion and analysis, like Olbermann, not straight journalism. These people are just pissed that his "bias" doesn't go in the correct direction.
ed|9.24.09 @ 3:10PM|#
I predict a very sharp decline in his actual
influence.
He's a libertarian. He has no influence!
Tony|9.24.09 @ 3:31PM|#
"Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I am upfront about mine."
It's my understanding that a reporter's beliefs should be
completely irrelevant if they're doing their job. That being said,
I do think there is merit in studying the effect of personal bias
on reporting.
Of course we're talking about FOX News here. Sorry, the channel is
with minor exceptions the propaganda arm of the GOP. Let's fix that
log in the eye of journalism before we bitch about the specks of
subtle bias that may creep into the New York Times' reporting.
Sean W. Malone|9.24.09 @ 3:31PM|#
Also, if you hadn't noticed, Stossel's full hour exposes on 20/20 have gotten fewer & fewer and more and more watered down. Not awesome... Whatever influence he might have had at the height of his ABC tenure is gone anyway. I'm happy to see him at Fox Business (ps. it's not "fox news", where O'Reilly & friends are).
Sean W. Malone|9.24.09 @ 3:33PM|#
"Of course we're talking about FOX News"
As I just noted, actually... NO... We're not. We're talking about
|9.24.09 @ 3:34PM|#
You Ever actually watch all of Olberman's show? The whole thing? or just the special comment bits that get posted to the internet. The special comment bit is an editorial. The rest of his show is news.
Sean W. Malone|9.24.09 @ 3:34PM|#
argh...
Tag fail... We're talking about Fox
Business - a separate entity from Fox News.
Sean W. Malone|9.24.09 @ 3:37PM|#
"You Ever actually watch all of Olberman's show? The whole thing? or just the special comment bits that get posted to the internet. The special comment bit is an editorial. The rest of his show is news."
And yet somehow you don't think that his sneering, asshole
editorializing doesn't bleed into the "news" portion of his
broadcasts? You don't think that the words Olberman chooses to use
are selected based on his core beliefs? You don't think the level
of hostility with which he treats guests or ideas isn't predicated
on his underlying world view?
You ever use your brain once in a while? The whole thing?
Tim|9.24.09 @ 3:49PM|#
Kolmgorov, I would argue that Fox is precisely where Stossel
needs to be. I think it is a lot easier to convince conservatives
that maybe they don't need to legislate morality and nation build
than it is to try and convince liberals the government isn't the
solution to every problem in the economy. Especially when there
isn't a Republican in power to inspire blind loyalty and red v blue
politics.
Who gives you a better hearing about libertarianism, your
conservative or liberal friends?
|9.24.09 @ 3:51PM|#
"""Doesn't Fox call itself "Fair and Balanced"?"""
In 2003 Fox news successfully defend themselves from a lawsuit in
Florida by claiming that broadcasters can lie and distort their
reports under the the first amendment.
"In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that
the Federal Communications Commission position against news
distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or
regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was
"totally vindicated" by the verdict.""
http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/d0887a41f76b34285649fb31711be7df-0.html
iamse7en|9.24.09 @ 3:55PM|#
Pro Libertate | September 24, 2009, 2:46pm | #
You know, I'd never considered this before, but Fox does seem to be willing to provide a forum for morel libertarian voices. That seems much less true of the other major news networks. Huh.
Exactly. That is what Stossel is trying to say. There's plenty of
criticism for any media outlet, but FOX is the only one that gives
room to libertarian, conservative, AND liberal viewpoints. All you
can complain about neocons and the populism of O'Reilly, but
they're important to debate. All the price gouging of mean, rich
oil companies is a populist-lar idea, and it's so
wrong. O'Reilly even had
Stossel on to debate that issue, and what's funny, O'Reilly
thought he 'won' that debate, even though Stossel made him look
stupid.
I can't wait to TiVo Stossel's new show.
MNG|9.24.09 @ 3:57PM|#
"We are all relativists now!
Giving the context, what can this possibly mean?"
It's funny to see the right claim that objectivity is impossible,
we are all biased, at least their propaganda mouths admit it.
Objectivity is impossible, let's embrace our subjectivity and
relativism!
|9.24.09 @ 3:59PM|#
Who gives you a better hearing about libertarianism, your conservative or liberal friends?
Precisely. In my personal experience Liberals are much more likely
to automatically attribute my Libertarian beliefs to that of a
Republican Conservative. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem
much more amiable to the concept of "live and let live" and are
much less likely to attribute Libertarian principles to "the
other".
classwarrior|9.24.09 @ 4:00PM|#
OK Guys, for those asking for an example of Mr. Stossel's lack
of intellectual honesty/rigor, here goes.
Recently when writing an article on healthcare John mentioned the
case of an Alberta woman who ended up going to Montana because she
was pregnant and faced a difficult delivery. This case was
publicized here in Canada, so I'm familiar with it. Because of an
unexpected spike in such cases at the time, she was sent south so
she could receive timely care, fully paid for by Alberta's health
care plan. John made no mention this, implying that this poor woman
was forced by a crappy government system to pay for her own care.
Now, either he knew about this and chose not to disclose it
(dishonesty) or didn't bother to research it properly before
spewing off (sloppiness).
There's no doubt in my mind that had a private insurer been
involved, Stossel would be singing their praises about managing
resources efficiently while taking care of patients needs. You
know, not like practicing recission and denying payment for some
ommission on the application form after collecting premiums for
years. It's the magic of the market, you see.
Oh, and there's this:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/1/749971/-Stossels-Smear-Campaign-on-health-care-reform
JB|9.24.09 @ 4:06PM|#
From personal experience with hundreds of liberals and conservatives, it's very easy to say that conservatives are far more tolerant.
Tony|9.24.09 @ 4:10PM|#
From personal experience with hundreds of liberals and conservatives, it's very easy to say that conservatives are far more tolerant.
Did one of those personal experiences include Ted Haggard and
crystal meth? I can definitely see where you're coming from.
Sean W. Malone|9.24.09 @ 4:18PM|#
Classwarrior: F
Go re-read the assignment and try again.
MNG: "Objectivity is impossible"
I'm certainly not saying that objectivity is "impossible" at large,
but within the format of a half hour or 45 minute television news
broadcast, it is. Anything produced for TV or given limited space
in a newspaper is edited, when you have edited
material, that requires editors! Editors - be they on-air
talent, or behind the scenes producers - have to make choices as to
which parts of stories to emphasize, which to omit, how to phrase
certain points and which words to use. Beyond that, the graphics
chosen, the lower-third overlays, the camera angles, the stock
footage selected. ALL of this goes into producing something with a
viewpoint.
EVERY piece of media you will ever see, has a
viewpoint.
Now... That viewpoint can try to be as neutral as possible, but
often that just leads to false dichotomies anyway. Say I host a
show with Paul Krugman on to talk "one side" of some economic
issue, and on the "other side" I give Art Laffer a chance to
respond. Fine... But by selecting those two viewpoints, I've still
managed to exclude what Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Pete
Leeson, Walter Block, Bob Murphy or Tom Woods might have had to
say... No matter what, given limited time and the proscenium of
television, bias is inevitable.
The best we can really do in my opinion is twofold:
1. Work as hard as we can to be accurate in our facts and provide
context - something reporters on the whole are woefully incompetent
about.
2. Admit our own biases right up front (as Stossel has done), so
that people listening can factor that into their understanding of
what we are saying.
We will never get number one perfect, but number two will help
improve credibility by encouraging people to question our work,
rather than presenting it as incontrovertible fact and expecting
consumers of media to just accept what we've said as true.
|9.24.09 @ 4:25PM|#
"weary of legalizing prostitution and hard drugs"
As a libertarian, I wish we had reason to be WEARY of the tedium of
legalizing thousands of different voluntary acts that don't involve
coercion or unwilling participants. Ah, all those laws and
regulations stricken, and so many more to go. One can only dream of
being tired by this.
Perhaps you meant "leery" or "wary"?
classwarrior|9.24.09 @ 4:26PM|#
Biases are not an excuse for dishonesty/sloppiness. The point is, these biases are corporate friendly, and critical evaluation will never get the same kind of airplay Stossel gets. And those who do their homework won't be paid nearly as well as he is for his shit.
Sean W. Malone|9.24.09 @ 4:27PM|#
Holy god Classwarrior, that DailyKos link was WAY worse than I
even expected it to be...
The population of the US without health care is not 50 million
people? Up from 30 million which Obama is claiming now and up from
even the maximum number I'd heard previously of 47 million? And of
course, up from the much more realistic number of 10-15 million...
And oh wait, that's just whose who are uninsured due to lack of
money and ineligible for government programs, not
actually those without health care, since 100% of individuals in
the US can drop into an emergency room and be treated.
Fuck man... That shit is why I don't look at Kos. Made up numbers
by a blogger who won't even give his real name (unless it really is
"YucatanMan"?), and then asserted as "facts" combined with
completely non sequitur conclusions aren't going to get you a
passing grade, sir.
Sean W. Malone|9.24.09 @ 4:30PM|#
argh... *whose = those
Note: speed-typing at work means more typos.
|9.24.09 @ 4:36PM|#
From personal experience with hundreds of liberals and
conservatives, it's very easy to say that conservatives are far
more tolerant.
Did one of those personal experiences include Ted Haggard and
crystal meth? I can definitely see where you're coming
from.
Rofl, oh the irony of the intolerant liberal making personal
attacks on anyone who dare observe that liberals tend to be less
tolerant:D
It's patently obvious that conservatives tend to be more tolerant.
It's not universal by any means, but conservatives have been
'socialized' to be tolerant, whereas liberals tend to think they
have been given the 'true word' and special dispensation to be self
righteous.
Conservatives are much more likely to wake up.
Sean W. Malone|9.24.09 @ 4:40PM|#
"The point is, these biases are corporate friendly, and critical evaluation will never get the same kind of airplay Stossel gets."
What the fuck are you talking about?
1. Stossel's biases are quite often NOT corporate friendly - most
libertarians will tell you, quite correctly, that big government
almost always benefits the giant corporations
first. Stossel has often talked of regulatory capture by
mega-corporations...
2. The media world is filled with nothing BUT
anti-business/anti-corporate propaganda. I mean, that's the comment
that actually chaps my ass... I'm working on a film about this
topic right now. Something like 70% of television media presents
businessmen & especially executives as worse than
gangsters, rapists & drug dealers for fuck's sake. Stossel
himself spent the first decade of his career doing the same kind of
anti-business scare stories that you can see EVERY DAY on any news
outlet in the country.
Again... WHAT the fuck are you talking about?
Tony|9.24.09 @ 4:40PM|#
100% of individuals in the US can drop into an emergency room and be treated.
Lamest anti-reform talking point ever. I somehow doubt in your
vision of a healthcare system we'd have anything as socialist as
requiring treatment for people who can't pay for it.
If you ARE in favor of a system in which emergency care is provided
on a needs basis... then why not just support reform, since the
idea is to lower costs imposed by just this very fact. Uninsured
people getting emergency treatment hikes costs for the insured.
|9.24.09 @ 4:47PM|#
I love John Stossel. I wish he was president. The man is like a shining beacon of reason and objective thought. I gave up television and cable a while back, but the thought of tunning into Stossel weekly might drive me to reconsider. I disagree with the Libertarians on immigration (I am against it) but the rest of the issues regarding freedom, -social and economical, outweighs that issue so I dont get caught up with it.
Tony|9.24.09 @ 4:47PM|#
It's patently obvious that conservatives tend to be more tolerant.
Would that be before, during, or after they're ranting about how I
shouldn't be allowed to have sex with or marry whom I want, or
expounding on their belief that I'm not a Real American because I
don't believe what they do?
Sean W. Malone|9.24.09 @ 4:49PM|#
"Lamest anti-reform talking point ever."
In what way have I EVER been "anti-reform", Tony? I'm anti-bad
economics, I'm anti-bad reasoning, I'm anti-dumbass... But I have
not ONCE suggested we should keep the US health care system as is.
More to the point, I am the one of the two of us anyway who
actually wants real reform, rather than just a beefing up
of the same anti-productive idiocy we're currently experiencing the
first serious pains from.
Tony|9.24.09 @ 4:57PM|#
Sean,
What I want is a single-payer system, definitely not whatever
industry-fellating POS Congress is about to pass. So at least we
can agree that we both want reform, just by different means. I do
think my way has more evidence in its favor (all those countries
with better, cheaper healthcare), but by all means be in favor of
"more libertopia!" or whatever it is you think is reform.
iamse7en|9.24.09 @ 5:00PM|#
Tony | September 24, 2009, 4:47pm | #
Would that be before, during, or after they're ranting about how I shouldn't be allowed to have sex with or marry whom I want, or expounding on their belief that I'm not a Real American because I don't believe what they do?
They only say you can't have sex with kids. You can have all the
butt-sex you want, you just can't change the definition of
marriage. Also, every group of people will have a few that claim
you're not a real American if you don't espouse their beliefs. Some
liberals, conservatives, and even libertarians do it.
iamse7en|9.24.09 @ 5:06PM|#
Tony | September 24, 2009, 4:57pm | #
Sean,
What I want is a single-payer system, definitely not whatever industry-fellating POS Congress is about to pass. So at least we can agree that we both want reform, just by different means. I do think my way has more evidence in its favor (all those countries with better, cheaper healthcare), but by all means be in favor of "more libertopia!" or whatever it is you think is reform.
Huh?! There's more evidence to support single-payer systems?
Better, cheaper healthcare?
It's a shame there are people out there who think this. It really
is. Just read this
and
this.
Sean W. Malone|9.24.09 @ 5:06PM|#
Tony... your "way" has actually 0 evidence in favor of it at
all, but whatever. I'd hate for you to actually cite some of the
so-called evidence only for me to have to demolish it by reality,
it might actually injure your fagile mental state.
As for same-sex marriage. As long as government gets to decide who
can & can't be married, problems like yours will occur. The
right answer is to not require any special government sanction,
give no special tax incentives and let people do whatever the hell
they want with whomever at any time - provided it's all voluntary.
TTFN.
ll blow j|9.24.09 @ 5:16PM|#
"What conservative routinely tunes into MSNBC"
I do. I watch the "Mister Ed Show" every night. A wise CFO once
taught me to watch my enemies closely.
|9.24.09 @ 5:21PM|#
""From personal experience with hundreds of liberals and
conservatives, it's very easy to say that conservatives are far
more tolerant.""
I find that it depends on how far left or right they are. The
further out, the less tolerant. The closer to the center the more
tolerant. I do find that those who spend a lot of times watching 24
hour news shows, pick your side, are less tolerant. I believe
that's a result of the us vs. them war.
|9.24.09 @ 5:23PM|#
Would that be before, during, or after they're ranting about
how I shouldn't be allowed to have sex with or marry whom I want,
or expounding on their belief that I'm not a Real American because
I don't believe what they do?
I don't know any conservatives like that, however I will stipulate
they do. Most conservatives I know actually do concede the
point that if government has this power to decide this, that power
will be used to do things they don't like. I've made the
same argument with school prayer, ID, pot, whatever, to some
success.
That argument (with different examples) however never has
worked with any liberal I know. Not once. They hate it when they
are tyrranized by the 51% but love it then they get to do the same.
It's just that simple to them.
True it's that simple to a lot of conservatives, but less than I
would have suspected.
What I want is a single-payer system, definitely not whatever
industry-fellating POS Congress is about to pass.
Tony, FFS, when has it ever been otherwise?
The answer is to make all parties compete to provide quality and
value.
Your answer is to make all parties compete for government
influence.
How can you still evade the glaring fact that every managed market
is dysfunctional in proportion to how much it's managed?
ll blow j|9.24.09 @ 5:27PM|#
"Did one of those personal experiences include Ted Haggard and
crystal meth?"
Why do you internalize your homophobia, Tony?
|9.24.09 @ 5:28PM|#
I'd really like to see Tony reasond to Sean's point #2.
Seriously, I hear ad-nauseum from leftists that the media is full
of pro-corporate pro-capitalist propaganda. Apparantly they got
this from having watched Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, and
not from having watched or read any actual news media. Because just
about everything in the media (and that includes Hollywood) is 100%
anti-business, anti-corporate, and anti-capitalist.
That's not surprising considering most of these Che-t-shirt-wearing
poseurs probably don't have the literacy standards necessary to
read the NY Times, so they have to get their impressions from
reading lefty cartoons in the alt weeklies, Jon Stewart, and
Michael Moore films.
Neu Mejican|9.24.09 @ 5:42PM|#
Sean W. Malone | September 24, 2009, 1:26pm | #
It's so amusing that people somehow think that a reporter admitting
his biases is less trustworthy than the ones who desperately
pretend that they aren't. Honesty, apparently, isn't worth
much.
Well, most people, methinks, are responding to an the fact that
most reporters make an effort to report objective facts as the
goal of the report in opposition to a piece designed to argue
a particular point of view. It isn't that honesty is being
discounted, it is that admitting bias shows that you are engaged in
a different kind of journalism...one whose goal is to promote your
personal bias. If you are not even willing to attempt to provide
objective information, people will rightly suspect that you are not
concerned with important aspects of the journalistic process (such
as independent verification, completeness, etc. -- all areas in
which Stossel's work is pretty weak).
So, really, admitting bias can be read as admitting that you are
too lazy to attempt the hard task of provide information that is as
complete and unbiased as possible. People are not devaluing the
honesty, they are, rather, valuing the attempt at objectivity...at
least that is how I would read it.
Neu Mejican|9.24.09 @ 5:47PM|#
I've worked as a TA too... at two universities in
fact.
Since when did working as a TA rate as a mark of expertise? Both of
you need to think through the impression this gives of your depth
of knowledge.
Just saying.
Neu Mejican|9.24.09 @ 6:02PM|#
Then, for the A+, why not give us all a full report on how
Stossel's accuracy scores against his peers - pick anyone you want;
Olberman, Maddow, Ariana Huffington, Wolf Blitzer...
Whoever.
His peers seems to mean something along the lines of "other
editorially focused news magazine hosts that avoid in-depth
reporting."
Or something.
Isolated mistakes without a comparison to the overall standard
of journalism at large and to the frequency of mistakes by peers
& singular anecdotes will get you an F, as will any review
which avoids any understanding of the limits of television as a
journalistic medium.
I hate it when I get a TA like this. They are always more work than
assistance as you waste time focusing them on designing realistic
assignments and setting reasonable and useful grading standards.
The bane of any instructor is the insecure-know-it-all TA.
|9.24.09 @ 6:07PM|#
I somehow doubt in your vision of a healthcare system we'd
have anything as socialist as requiring treatment for people who
can't pay for it.
Google EMTALA, Tony. You might learn something.
Neu Mejican|9.24.09 @ 6:11PM|#
Joe M | September 24, 2009, 5:39pm | #
I'm sure Tony supports this policy.
I am unclear what this story has to do with anything. What is the
specific problem you think it highlights?
Joe M|9.24.09 @ 6:23PM|#
Tony said:
What I want is a single-payer system.... I do think my way has more evidence in its favor (all those countries with better, cheaper healthcare)
Single payer system does not provide better healthcare. They
literally let a baby die because they were following national
guidelines. They refused treatment in a medical
emergency.
Tim|9.24.09 @ 6:24PM|#
For every conservative that calls someone unpatriotic or
unAmerican, whatever that even means; there's two liberals calling
you a racist, corporate shill, or implying you just don't care
about poor people if you oppose their plans. An interesting
international comparison though would be an examination of what
happens to people like Danniel Hannan when they criticize their
country's health systems. Opposition to socialized medicine isn't
really considered very "British" or "Canadian". Of course Joe Biden
also said paying higher taxes is patriotic and even the line
"dissent is the highest form of patriotism" implies that the
critics of the war for example were actually more patriotic than
the war's supporters.
That wasn't even my main point though, but that conservatives are
more friendly to libertarians.
The broader point though is the hypocrisy, conservatives don't run
around getting all self righteous about tolerance. They don't
demand affirmative action plans and diversity centers, and then
turn around and treat people who disagree with them on things like
Obamacare horribly. They want to increase diversity on campus in
order to bring in people with different worldviews since they
believe it enhances the academic environment, but then go nuts when
the actually encounter someone who thinks differently from them.
Unless of course one is more leftist than they are, then one is
just a misguided idealist or speaking truth to power.
|9.24.09 @ 6:24PM|#
Since when did working as a TA rate as a mark of expertise?
Both of you need to think through the impression this gives of your
depth of knowledge.
I was hall monitor in the third grade.
Joe M|9.24.09 @ 6:25PM|#
I was hall monitor in the third grade.
I shared a diet soda with the TA in Kindergarten.
highnumber|9.24.09 @ 6:31PM|#
Who gives you a better hearing about libertarianism, your
conservative or liberal friends?
Liberal. The liberals I know are very tolerant, compassionate
people. And I go to a UU church, so I run into some very, very
left-wing folks. Not that the conservatives I know are not nice
folks, too. Everybody, tho, seems to think that they know better.
That's not a left/right, liberal/conservative thing. Libertarians
act like they know better too.
Chad|9.24.09 @ 6:52PM|#
Tim | September 24, 2009, 3:49pm | #
I think it is a lot easier to convince conservatives that maybe
they don't need to legislate morality and nation build than
it is to try and convince liberals the government isn't the
solution to every problem in the economy.
You have it wrong about liberals. We don't think that the
government is the solution to every problem. Sometimes markets
work, sometimes the government works, and sometimes a hybrid system
works.
Indeed, you have it backwards. It is libertarians and conservatives
who believe that the market ALWAYS works best that are the
problem...especially since this is obviously false.
Take a look at the two major bills in congress right now - health
care and cap-and-trade. The latter is textbook economics in action
and is founded upon a market-based mechanism. The former attempts
to keep our hybrid market-based system alive despite the
overwhelming evidence that it is an absolute piece of shit....in
order to placate a few conservatives and make the thing look
bipartisan.
Chad|9.24.09 @ 6:57PM|#
faithkills | September 24, 2009, 5:23pm | #
How can you still evade the glaring fact that every managed market
is dysfunctional in proportion to how much it's managed?
How can you still evade the glaring fact that our health care
system is far more dysfunctional than ANY national plan in any
industrialized nation. This, of course, refutes the "fact" that you
just gave, so I guess I understand WHY you evade. Your entire
philosophy rests upon evading the plentiful data that contradicts
it.
We pay far more, are less secure, and do not get better care than
the French, the Japanese, the Germans, the Swiss, the Swedes, etc
etc etc.
Game, set, match. There is nothing left to debate.
Joe M|9.24.09 @ 6:59PM|#
Take a look at the two major bills in congress right now -
health care and cap-and-trade. The latter is textbook economics in
action and is founded upon a market-based mechanism.
*massive spit take*
Buh???
Morton Kurzweil|9.24.09 @ 7:32PM|#
"Every reporter has political beliefs. The difference is that I
am upfront about mine."
The difference is that a reporter is unbiased. An evangelist is
biased, and never upfront about it. The need to proselytize is the
result of the insecurity of a belief. Repetition and ritual,
emotional defense and attraction to fellow believers for support
are the signs of an unstable personality and dependency on a belief
system.
"Every reporter"? No, just the ones who speak with conviction when
true reporting require doubt.
Chad|9.24.09 @ 7:33PM|#
Joe, both cap-and-trade and a carbon tax are classic,
market-based economic solutions to the carbon problem. In an
efficient world (which free-market theory assumes), the two
policies are actually identical.
A non-market system would be regulations that picked and chose
particular technologies. The have been used successfully in the
past, but it is better to set a framework at let the market work
within that framework, if such is possible.
|9.24.09 @ 7:46PM|#
[ll blow j-
"What conservative routinely tunes into MSNBC"
I do. I watch the "Mister Ed Show" every night. A wise CFO once
taught me to watch my enemies closely.]
Shouldn't the host of the "Mister Ed" show on MSNBC be black? Just
to fit the uh.....uhhh...name...and uh..be in proportion to the
images that come to mind?
|9.24.09 @ 8:14PM|#
I see you guys are really determined to send the trolls to bed tonight with a full stomach.
Michael Ejercito|9.24.09 @ 8:57PM|#
In KOS world anyone who appears on FOX is a sellout. The act of even appearing on the network, even if you are espousing liberal views, makes you a conservative shill. The liberal neurosis about Fox is really pathetic.
You would think from their neurosis that Fox News did something
like using forged documents to slander the President of the United
States.
Steve Smith|9.24.09 @ 9:04PM|#
GLUE AND CAT FOOD MAKES STEVE GO SLEEPY. STEVE NEED SLEEP FOR MORNING RAPE.
|9.24.09 @ 9:13PM|#
I have been a big fan of John Stossel for many years. What is
wrong with reporting the truth?
I applaud truth and transparency in our 'elected' government.
I don't care about republicans or democrats. To me they are all
Fedcoats.
The only ideology that can save this Republic is a Liberterian
ideology.
We are REASONABLE people.
I agree with Gerald Celente that a new party will soon emerge in
this country. The only problem is that the media is still
controlled by the PTB.
Judge Napolitano is my hero and we need to listen to his clear and
concise defense of the US Constitution.
Its about time that Fox is heading towards the ideals of
Libertarianism...quite frankly, they have no choice.
Republican are riding our coat tails and this needs to be exposed
and acknowledged as well.
I have no dog in the fight between the republikrats. I only care
about the Republic, the US Constitution, individual Liberty and
Sovereignty.
Jeff Adams
Atlanta, GA
Eric H|9.24.09 @ 9:24PM|#
Suggestion: Devote at least 40% of your time to countering the nonsense emanating from O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck (and Limbaugh, Levin, and the otheres). Devote another 40% to ripping Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert a new one. Then spend the remaining 20% to news stories that don't make it onto any other show. The first 80% will drive ratings and simultaneously undermine your critics and at least bring an audience to the latter 20% which has no forum anywhere else. You don't have to spend as much time criticizing the MSM since the first group already tends to do that.
Tim|9.24.09 @ 10:14PM|#
A carbon tax is textbook economics, assuming that global warming
is anthropogenic. The latter of which I am not qualified to comment
on. The only economics the cap and trade bill will illustrate are
the concepts of regulatory capture and public choice. I could
support a carbon tax based upon sound economics, not cap and
trade.
Libertarians are not market worshipers, most are minarchists that
recognize the government's role to provide public goods like the
police and national defense; and to regulate against harms caused
by force and fraud, which includes those due to externalities. What
we oppose are things like bailouts, stimulus packages, cash for
clunkers, corporate welfare, socialized medicine and other
misguided attempts to control the economy that aren't based upon
any sound theory of economics. Sorry Keynes doesn't count.
As for "health reform", yes the current system we have now isn't
doing to well; which is why libertarians propose rolling back the
government interventions that make insurance so costly rather than
doubling down on them. One can't buy insurance out of state,
limiting the individual market; and the vast majority of people get
coverage through work due to the tax code allowing such people to
purchase it with pre tax dollars. This leaves a tiny set of people
in an artificially shrunk market allowing the remaining providers
to maintain poor practices and charge higher prices.
I can think of few libertarians that have said the market always
works, and those are usually called anarchists. Competitive markets
where consumers and producers bear the costs and benefits of their
actions ALWAYS work. Everything is a good or a service, and most
libertarians support government running things like national
defense because it can't be provided competitively; however there
is no sound economic reasoning behind what liberals do.
The problem with liberals (and some conservatives) is that they
interfere in the markets, either by manipulating the money supply,
encouraging over investment in housing via fannie and freddie, the
mortgage interest tax deduction, the community reinvestment act,
bailouts, and all other kinds of things not justified by any sound
theory of economics. Then "bad things" happen like the recession,
they run around screaming unbridled greed and corrupt capitalism;
and fail to realize that their polices removed the fear of loss
that checks greed and encouraged people to make bad decisions like
buying houses they couldn't afford and making loans to those who
couldn't pay them back. Prices and interest rates represent the
costs of an action, and when government arbitrarily fiddles with
these then they make actions that would otherwise be prohibitively
costly seem like good decisions without changing any of the
underlying circumstances; eventually they can't prop this system up
by printing more money and it all falls apart, and then they blame
the "free market".
They also pass all sorts of regulations on goods like health
insurance and let the AMA capture the licensing mechanism and
complain about health insurance being really expensive. Of course
while doctors are a group that actually have a reason to need some
sort of licensing, many states require licenses for hair dressers
and manicurists among others. Thus people spend more on basic
services, more to support bureaucrats to certify this folks, and
then wonder why unemployment is higher when people are barred from
jobs and have less disposable income. I could go on for days.
They also don't comprehend that things like a recession or
bankruptcy are the market working, it is working to weed out people
who made bad decisions so they don't keep wasting resources.
Liberals muck this up by bailing them out and allowing them to
continue making these decisions, and effectively encourage future
people to do the same knowing if they loose the government will be
there. They think that a bunch of bureaucrats can somehow know
every possible way that people could take "undue risk"; and even if
we grant them that assumption they also assume that their elected
officials and bureaucrats are immune from the laws of concentrated
benefits and diffuse costs and of rational ignorance, to name two,
and will when in power be able to avoid regulatory capture and
actually keep people from engaging in undue risk.
Can you name an economic problem that liberals haven't proposed a
government program to fix?
|9.24.09 @ 10:14PM|#
John Stossel will either serve a nice stew of Government
propaganda or be fired.
They didn't fire Anthony Napolitano.
-jcr
|9.24.09 @ 10:16PM|#
We don't think that the government is the solution to every
problem.
Why do you keep proposing more government to solve the problems
that government has caused?
-jcr
Chad|9.24.09 @ 10:32PM|#
John C. Randolph | September 24, 2009, 10:16pm | #
Why do you keep proposing more government to solve the problems
that government has caused?
Why do you assume that the government causes all problems? As I
have pointed out many times: Libertarians NEED Big Government,
because if it were ever as small as they wished, it would be hard
to blame everything bad on it as they do now.
If it seems that I am always proposing government-based solutions
to things, it is largely because of two phenomena. The first is the
fact that our government is smaller than most other advanced
nations, leaving more room to the left than to the right. The
second is that, well, I like arguing with you guys, so my posts
will be biased in number towards those where I support government
action (on this website at least).
Chad|9.24.09 @ 10:35PM|#
Tim | September 24, 2009, 10:14pm | #
I could support a carbon tax based upon sound economics, not cap
and trade
I fail to understand why every principled libertarian isn't
screaming for a carbon tax RIGHT NOW. It is far better to tax
negative externalities than labor, which we do now.
I am sure the Democrats would be happy to go along.
(Btw, I didn't even notice until after I wrote it, but you fell
right into the "Blame the Government for All Things Bad"
logic).
hmm|9.24.09 @ 10:42PM|#
Like the article said. I've never had a problem with bias.
Everyone even reporters are welcome to an opinion and view. But the
people who are not open about their view and are in the media are
dishonest at best. The one thing everyone rails on Fox about is its
conservative angle, the very angle its staff and owner say it's
designed to have. You'd be hard pressed to see other networks claim
a liberal angle or any other angle for that mater.
Just call it what it is and go from there.
|9.24.09 @ 11:22PM|#
Why do you assume that the government causes all problems?
As I have pointed out many times: Libertarians NEED Big Government,
because if it were ever as small as they wished, it would be hard
to blame everything bad on it as they do now.
Given that libertarians HATE politics and government, and that this
aversion is party responsible for our inability to actually win
elections, I suspect without big government, we'd just melt away
and do something else. None of us really enjoys trying to influence
policy. We'd rather be out enjoying our egoistic, selfish
pleasures.
Tim|9.24.09 @ 11:56PM|#
One many libertarians disagree with global warming.
Two, negative externality taxes can't be both good at reducing the
behavior and be a solid revenue source, especially carbon. The more
one deters the behavior, the less there is to tax; and as the
stated goal of environmentalist is as close to a carbon neutral
society as possible, the closer the carbon tax gets to actually
solving the problem the less revenue it yields.
Three, the likelihood that liberals wouldn't just pocket the money
instead of cutting other taxes is quite high.
I agree though that a carbon tax offset by equivalent income tax
cuts is the best way to go; but it won't happen. It certainly isn't
going to make a serious dent in other taxes if it is actually doing
its job; and if it isn't reducing carbon emissions by enough to
make an impact on global warming whats the point? The latter would
just amount to a productivity tax in a different form.
I don't blame government for all the problems but am just following
the facts. Did I say anything untrue? Did we have sound money over
the last few years? Is the health insurance industry currently
competitive? Did something other than state regulations lead to it
not being competitive? Did the government not encourage people to
buy homes, including many who couldn't afford them? And did they
not also encourage banks to give such people loans they couldn't
pay back? What regulations would have stopped this without
subverting government's housing goals? How can you say the market
caused the problem when it is hardly being allowed to operate?
Maybe government can solve it, but it certainly caused it. What
economic concept leads you to think that health insurance is
something that needs to be run/regulated by the government? (Other
than enforcing contracts and preventing fraud.)
When you can answer those questions then you can come on here and
ask why we blame government.
You have also yet to answer what economic problem you don't want
the government to solve?
Art-P.O.G.|9.25.09 @ 1:09AM|#
I see you guys are really determined to send the trolls to bed tonight with a full stomach.
I will note, Mr. Free, that no one fed the trolls after midnight.
Sean W. Malone|9.25.09 @ 1:12AM|#
I've finally returned to the party... Way late to be sure, but
whatever... Remarks:
"Since when did working as a TA rate as a mark of expertise? Both of you need to think through the impression this gives of your depth of knowledge."
It doesn't. I was making a joke because the classwarrior used his
TA experience as something to give him credibility.
"We pay far more, are less secure, and do not get better care than the French, the Japanese, the Germans, the Swiss, the Swedes, etc etc etc."
Bullshit, Chad. Bullshit. We may have less government "guaranteed"
coverage but we get vastly superior results in the treatment of
serious illnesses, we produce BY FAR the most medical innovations
in technology, drugs & procedures, we have somewhere around 10x
better access to machinery & hospital equipment, and we have
jack shit for waiting times. AND we wind up paying more in part
because we are subsidizing the artificially (mandated) lower cost
of drugs in Europe & Canada... AND... Everybody's welfare state
systems, including ours are running on fumes teetering on the edge
of bankruptcy.
The only real problem with our health care system is the
high cost, and that is ENTIRELY a result of
government intervention and the (un)intended consequences of 60
years of command & control bullshit.
Game set and match...? Not even close, you douchebag.
"Libertarians NEED Big Government, because if it were ever as small as they wished, it would be hard to blame everything bad on it as they do now."
STFU Chad. If government were down to something relatively
non-intrusive, I would just go off and enjoy my life and not worry
about it too much - but for too long, that's exactly what everyone
did. With the exception of a few people since the 40s, starting
with FA Hayek, there weren't a ton of people out there sounding the
warning bells on this shit. I'm assuming it has something to do
with my folk's generation growing up with myths of the heroic
cripple FDR and then a decade or two of mush-brained hedonism and
hippies now running lousy in the very establishment they all
"fought" when they were 18. That issue probably requires some
in-depth psychoanalysis though and I can only speculate on
that.
Also, STFU about "externalities". Jesus you overuse that term. I'm
not going to be "Screaming" for ANY taxes, ever. Forcibly taking
people's money is theft, regardless of what it ultimately gets used
for. I would prefer the elimination of the income tax and a
marginal carbon tax, as the extent of any government-oriented
global warming "solution", but frankly, there is not a single human
being on the planet who's yet come even a little close to
convincing me that A. we know for certain that it's the 3% or so of
CO2 emitted by humanity that's the root cause of Global Warming, B.
That the earth's warming is particularly severe or even out of
historical norsm, C. That if the earth warms by a few degrees over
the next 100ish years - life would be negatively affected, or D.
That government programs to combat it would do anything at all
about the "problem", and instead impose massive reductions in
economic growth around the world leaving millions - possibly
billions - of people starving and poorer than they otherwise would
have been. The trade-offs in play on that issue are pure insanity,
especially when it's much more intelligent and reasonable to focus
energy instead on technology that would mitigate the impact of
global warming on humankind such as efficient air conditioning,
renewable & abundant food sources and better energy
production.
Anything else... Hmm... Ah yes, and ANSWER TIM'S QUESTIONS
too!
Sean W. Malone|9.25.09 @ 1:15AM|#
Does Chad count as a "troll"? If so, then oops... As I've said before, I usually refer to trolls as people who are griefers - people who show up and say some idiot jab just to muck up a discussion. Chad & Tony actually believe what they're saying and are making weak-efforts to argue their case, albeit, they are both incredibly stupid and ignorant. Maybe I'm just oblivious to such things.
Ben|9.25.09 @ 2:35AM|#
I love John Stossel, I just wish that I had FBC on my cable. Maybe if the show gets good ratings they will move it to Fox News. Will Glen Beck promote it, after all he has libertarian leanings being a former shock jock and all.
jester|9.25.09 @ 4:09AM|#
Why do you assume that the government causes all problems?
easy, cuz it duz. No assuming going on, you fucking dipshit. Why do
you assume government intervention isn't a selective process that
helps some but hinders others?
It's part of your pervasive meme, but it's selective. Why?
Chad|9.25.09 @ 6:46AM|#
Tim | September 24, 2009, 11:56pm | #
One many libertarians disagree with global warming.
And that only goes to show how that many people, libertarians
included, are willing to disbelieve facts that contradict their
ideology. There is no reason per se that libertarians should have
an opinion one way or the other on a scientific issue.
Two, negative externality taxes can't be both good at reducing
the behavior and be a solid revenue source, especially
carbon.
We can generate several tens of billions in revenue each from a
carbon tax. That seems pretty solid to me. Of course, that will
dwindle over time as we de-carbonize. But remember that the tax
should also grow over time, off-setting the shrinking
emissions.
I agree though that a carbon tax offset by equivalent income
tax cuts is the best way to go; but it won't happen.
It shouldn't happen. If we had a balanced budget, I would agree,
but we are not even laughably close to that, and there is no way in
cold hell we are going to get there with spending cuts alone.
I don't blame government for all the problems but am just
following the facts. Did I say anything untrue? Did we have sound
money over the last few years?
No, neither public nor private.
Is the health insurance industry currently
competitive?
Yes, highly so. Almost everyone who is insured is insured through
their employers, and our employers do everything they can to find
the lowest-cost provider. But in any case, that is not the problem.
The core market failures that are inherent to insurance are....and
these are there regardless of who pays for the insurance.
When you can answer those questions then you can come on here
and ask why we blame government.
You keep falling right into the trap. The government is about a
third of our economy, so in one way or the other, it is going to
touch everything. You then will blame it for everything that goes
wrong, and assume that it is the sole cause when it is not.
I am sorry to inform you that this is simply incorrect. Bad things
happen without government.
You have also yet to answer what economic problem you don't
want the government to solve?
Let's see. The market seems incapable of providing me with the
right color of iPOD, shirts with sleeves the right length, and
electric clocks that match my bedroom decor. That's the kind of
stuff markets are good at working out, and I see no reason for
government interference. It is also most of the economy.
huangzhixian35|9.25.09 @ 9:55AM|#
HTTP://WWW.ICFSHOP.COM =====FREE SHIPPING FREE======
BIKINI $25. OUR COMMITMENT,CUSTOMER IS GOD.
http://www.icfshop.com
All the products are free shipping, and the the price is enticement
, and also can accept the paypal payment.we can ship within 24
hours after your payment.
accept the paypal
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
our price:coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32coogi DG edhardy gucci
t-shirts $15CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $35jordan dunk af1
max gucci shoes $33EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $15coach okely
CHANEL DG Sunglass $16.our price: (Bikini)coach chanel gucci LV
handbags $32.coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $15.CA edhardy
vests.paul smith shoes $35.jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes
$33.EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $15.coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass
$16
http://www.icfshop.com =====FREE SHIPPING FREE=====
I wish you a happy shopping and happy every day!
|9.25.09 @ 10:58AM|#
Indeed, you have it backwards. It is libertarians and
conservatives who believe that the market ALWAYS works best that
are the problem
Would that it were so. Conservatives as a group don't believe in
free markets any more than liberals. Try explaining to a
conservative that tax breaks for health insurance has caused a lot
of the cost inflation. Or that mortgage tax breaks helped cause the
housing bubble.
Those aren't the sole causes of course.
How can you still evade the glaring fact that our health care
system is far more dysfunctional than ANY national plan in any
industrialized nation.
You are living in another reality. We have the best health care
system in the world despite all the damage government intervention
has caused, there's still a tiny smidge of market freedom
left.
Perhaps you can explain why health care prices were par with
overall inflation until the government got involved.
Game, set, match. There is nothing left to debate.
You're right, the data is incontrovertible. You just have never
examined it. That's ok, I used to be an NPRbot too.
There is no reason per se that libertarians should have an
opinion one way or the other on a scientific
issue.
Libertarians as a group tend to look at data rather than mindlessly
consuming 20 second video bites fed them. Otherwise they would not
be libertarians. You don't get to be a libertarian from listening
to Limbaugh or NPR. You read Hayek, Rothbard, Nock, et al.
Libertarians as a group also understand the scientific method.
Which warmists seem to be universally challenged by.
You keep falling right into the trap. The government is about a
third of our economy, so in one way or the other, it is going to
touch everything.
And yet, in the markets that are left alone, there is abundance and
quality. But in things that government tries to 'help' we have
costs decoupled from inflation, shortages, and poor quality.
I am sorry to inform you that this is simply incorrect. Bad
things happen without government.
That statement reveals a level of ignorance that is depressing. So,
to you, libertarians think that without government there will be a
utopia. It's no wonder your arguments are incoherent.. you don't
comprehend what you are arguing against.
Tony|9.25.09 @ 11:17AM|#
Like all ideologues, when it finally becomes intellectually untenable for you guys to hang onto your climate change denial (it is already, you just don't realize it yet), you'll just conveniently forget you ever believed this nonsense and move on. What on earth does Hayek have to do with a matter of scientific fact? Libertarian or no, you don't get to just make shit up and not be called on it. Libertarians understand the scientific method? What's scientific about a massive selection bias in favor of denier sources while dismissing mainstream scientific consensus as a huge conspiracy to oppress you?
Michael Ejercito|9.25.09 @ 11:23AM|#
I fail to understand why every principled libertarian isn't screaming for a carbon tax RIGHT NOW. It is far better to tax negative externalities than labor, which we do now.
What do we need a carbon tax for?
|9.25.09 @ 11:31AM|#
you'll just conveniently forget you ever believed this
nonsense and move on.
That will happen but it won't be me who does so. So you
really believe that crap? Fascinating.
So do you really believe in statism too? Lol I was sure you were a
corporate shill. Maybe you're just a NPRbot dupe. Most of us were..
so maybe there's hope yet for you.
What on earth does Hayek have to do with a matter of scientific
fact?
If you can follow the calculation argument you are less likely to
be suckered in by bad science.
What's scientific about a massive selection bias in favor of
denier sources while dismissing mainstream scientific consensus as
a huge conspiracy to oppress you?
Thanks for making the point. You don't understand the scientific
method.
There's a difference between sciency sounding stuff and
science.
Michael Ejercito|9.25.09 @ 11:41AM|#
What's scientific about a massive selection bias in favor of denier sources while dismissing mainstream scientific consensus as a huge conspiracy to oppress you?
The obvious quick fix is being ignored.
|9.25.09 @ 11:59AM|#
""What do we need a carbon tax for?""
Can't carbon pay it's own tax? ;-)
"""We can generate several tens of billions in revenue each from a
carbon tax."""
Who's this we you are talking about?
""that will dwindle over time as we de-carbonize.""
Humm, a carbon based life form talking about de-carbonizing. The
irony.
Chad|9.25.09 @ 12:05PM|#
faithkills | September 25, 2009, 11:31am | #
Thanks for making the point. You don't understand the scientific
method. There's a difference between sciency sounding stuff and
science.
Speaking as a scientist, Faithkills, I can assure you that Tony
does understand the scientific method, and you aren't even in the
ballpark yet. You won't get there until you are able to distinguish
quality sources from crackpot sources.
And I am also certain that you cannot "follow the math" of climate
change papers. Only a few thousand people in the world can, and you
certainly aren't one of them. You have a serious issue in that you
don't even know what you don't know. That is the most dangerous
form of ignorance.
Michael Ejercito|9.25.09 @ 12:07PM|#
And I am also certain that you cannot "follow the math" of climate change papers.
Can you follow the math of the TTAPS study?
|9.25.09 @ 12:14PM|#
"Every reporter has political beliefs"
It's very true, it will influence which stories a reporter is most
likely to investigate.
The catch is this doesn't apply to you, John. You're not a
reporter, you're a pundit.
|9.25.09 @ 12:38PM|#
Speaking as a scientist, Faithkills, I can assure you that
Tony does understand the scientific method, and you aren't even in
the ballpark yet. You won't get there until you are able to
distinguish quality sources from crackpot sources.
A scientist who doesn't understand the scientific method? I doubt
it. Unless you in the warmism biz?;) Only in warmism does this crap
pass as 'science'.
And I am also certain that you cannot "follow the math" of
climate change papers. Only a few thousand people in the world can,
and you certainly aren't one of them.
Sorry pal, it's not quantum physics (which I have
studied), the math just isn't that complex for anyone who went
beyond college calculus. Just because you don't understand it don't
assume everyone else can't.
It's not that the math is hard to follow it's that the science is
bad. Well there is no scientific theory just a lot of predictions
from models that never match reality.
You can start with trying to figure out how in the precambrian CO2
was six times what it is today and temperatures were cooler.
Hmmm..
Sean W. Malone|9.25.09 @ 12:38PM|#
"What on earth does Hayek have to do with a matter of
scientific fact?"
Everything you nitwit!
There are limits to the specific knowledge acquirable by individual
people. There are epistemologically impossible underpinnings of any
theory that assumes the ability to know & predict the results
of a nearly infinitely complex system. Climate science &
economics are in some ways very similar actually Tony. They both
involve millions of rapidly and constantly changing variables which
effect each other in ways that are far-reaching and often
unknowable.
The problem with the climate religion that people like you
and Chad believe in is that it's NOT actually based on real data -
it, like econometric modeling, is based primarily on mathematical
projections of the future. These same mathematical projections that
fail OVER and OVER AGAIN in economics to predict
anything meaningful or useful (and which have earned economists
utter disrespect in the world at large) are essentially the same
variety of "science" being employed by most climatologists.
If you actually understood or read Hayek, maybe you'd understand
why many libertarians - and most people with a properly functioning
brain - are not so excited about imposing massive, oppressive,
crippling & stifling legislation based on some computer models
that already failed to predict the past ten years of global
cooling.
At some point, it'd be REALLY nice if you, and Chad for that
matter, actually realized that you don't fucking know
everything.
Sean W. Malone|9.25.09 @ 12:47PM|#
And also, what faithkills said. I know personally know about a
hundred people who would be more than capable of "understanding"
the math behind climatology models. For the most part, it's just
calculus - which, I'm personally a bit rusty at but could probably
revive - and just about every decent engineer on the planet could
handle just fine.
The real problem, and the one that actually pisses me off when
people like Tony/Chad call this shit "science", is that we have
this absurd regression of models providing data which then goes
into the predictions made using other models. It's so similar to
Keynesian/neo-classical statistics-based macroeconomics that it's
insane! At least with climatology it's conceivable that at some
point maybe 100 years from now, people will understand the
variables reasonably well enough to make a few moderately
successful, but highly qualified predictions about the future of
the earth's climate, whereas economics deals with variables which
change of their own volition (people) and will never wind up being
successfully predicted by such calculus... But in either case,
we're not even the tiniest bit there yet.
And... The other thing that pisses me off is the blatant hypocrisy
of people claiming that the "opposition" is funded by big oil
companies (I sure as hell am not!) while completely ignoring that
the government trough for such research is billions of dollars a
year, and like all rent-seekers, it's in the best interest of a lot
of professional scientists to keep the gravy train rollin.
Tony|9.25.09 @ 1:09PM|#
Sean,
You're just wrong that there's no hard data and only computer
modeling. There are plenty of legitimate sources on this topic
where you can educate yourself. You're obviously a smart guy, so
that you can actually be positing some giant statist conspiracy
involving most relevant scientists and governments instead of the
more parsimonious explanation (scientists are right, crackpots are
wrong), means your ideology matters to you so much that you can't
even entertain the existence of a problem for which it offers no
solution. At least that's how it seems to me. I can't explain it
any other way--you no doubt trust far more shaky scientific
consensuses on a range of other topics. Your posts are just another
argument from ignorance fallacy. We don't know everything, but we
don't know nothing either. Climate scientists have presented the
most likely scenario based on the data. Maybe it's all wrong, a
giant conspiracy, whatever, but you can't simply dismiss it out of
hand while at the same time hanging on every word of whatever
crackpot contrarian you run across.
Sean W. Malone|9.25.09 @ 1:58PM|#
Tony,
I didn't call it a giant "conspiracy", now did I? It's also not a
giant conspiracy that the majority of economists are incapable of
producing any work that actually reflects reality either. It
originates from the acceptance of epistemologically unsound
methodology.
The people like you who buy into it hook, line & sinker, are
simultaneously taking a LOT of things for granted. You're taking
for granted that the data collection methods are reliable,
consistent and they just
aren't. You're taking for granted that climate scientists fully
understand the interplay of variables in the weather, which they
clearly don't and most real
scientists will actually openly admit that. You're taking for
granted that the IPCC - which seems to be the main source of
authority for people like you - isn't
biased or motivated by the same kinds of attention &
rent-seeking that every other self-important government panel
of policy analysts often are, which is an absurdity only someone
completely unfamiliar with the workings of government agencies
could assume.
From there you are further assuming that whatever scenarios these
completely non-biased, objective, fully competent, infinitely
knowledgeable and rigorous individuals come up with based on
clearly accurate data are all predicting the doom of humanity at
humanity's own hand. This is more Hollywood and rehashed Malthusian
nonsense than anything that's ever been borne out by actual
history... And hilariously, one of your primary arguments always
comes down to the most scientific of all possible positions:
Appeal to Popularity. Even better is that that fallacy is even
weakening everyday as
hundreds of professional scientists disagree with the consensus
you seem to believe = truth... But hey - who cares?
You assume almost limitless, perfect knowledge & accurate data.
You assume that the models people have created are correct, and
well-constructed enough to give you insight into the distant
future. You assume that scientists fully understand cause and
effect in a massively complex system - which even the scientists
themselves recognize that they really don't - and then you assume
that every possible outcome will be so catastrophic that people
need to be forced into actions that actually do have a
known (and very bad) end result. The bulk of the "solutions" so far
proposed are widely understood as being highly damaging to
productivity and human well-being.
As a result, basically all you're doing is fear-mongering.
So you've taken all this for granted - swallowed a long stream of
bad logic with no skepticism at all - and yet you say that
I am the one basing my position on ideology?? I
disagree sir.
And then of course, you pretend that I'm calling all this a
conspiracy... When I've clearly suggested that far from being a
conspiracy of any kind, it's purely based on the hubris of a few
intellectuals and a ton of imbeciles like yourself which has caused
them to fail to question their own conclusions or the limits of
their knowledge. If this is a conspiracy, then by that logic, I
would also have to believe that Paul Krugman is a key player in a
conspiracy to take down the global economy. No Tony, it's just that
people are fallible... And let's be honest, the most fallible among
us are those - and this happens to include a remarkably high
percentage of public and professional intellectuals - who
unquestioningly believe they know everything they need to
know.
What actually sort of pisses me off about all this is that I'm the
one fighting for the pro-science position!
I recognize the epistemological limits on mankind. As a result, I
do not accept poorly maintained and inconsistent weather stations
as as an acceptable source of climate data (and if you look at
upper atmosphere temperature, the picture of climate change looks
radically different). I do not accept that comparatively simplistic
mathematical models are ever going to provide useful information on
the entirety of a gigantic system... Especially if those models are
using garbage data. I also am capable of realizing that said models
have failed miserably to make accurate predictions about the future
10 years from now, much less 100. I also do not accept that 100% of
possible outcomes end in disaster without drastic and immediate
action.
And lastly, even if all of the above were true as you must assume,
Tony, mounds of real evidence over virtually all of human political
history suggests that even if people had to "do something"
immediately, government mandates, command & control
legislation, limited production and force would be the worst
possible way to handle it
It's amazing how much you have to assume you know just to arrive at
where you are on this and so many other issues Tony. Why not try a
little bit of actual, rational skepticism?
|9.25.09 @ 4:00PM|#
Classwarrior,
From a fellow Canadian, please...stop. You're showcasing for all to
see the shortcomings of Canadian education.
You speak of "critical" thinking and then you turn around and send
a link to dailykos? Who's next? Michael Moore?
The bottom line is what the heck is a Canadian, since you know, we
believe to have such an amazing system, doing going to get service
in a different country on the taxpayer's dime?
That stuff happens all the time. Not good and what does that say
about our system?
Chad|9.25.09 @ 5:46PM|#
And lastly, even if all of the above were true as you must
assume, Tony, mounds of real evidence over virtually all of human
political history suggests that even if people had to "do
something" immediately, government mandates, command & control
legislation, limited production and force would be the worst
possible way to handle it
Sean, in a wild attempt to prove Tony right, shows how he accepts
on faith that markets are the Panglosian best of all worlds despite
much evidence, theory and research to the contrary, while denying
the evidence for AGW despite its overwhelming acceptance by the
scientific community.
Sean, why the double standard?
Chad|9.25.09 @ 6:17PM|#
faithkills | September 25, 2009, 12:38pm | #
Sorry pal, it's not quantum physics (which I have studied), the
math just isn't that complex for anyone who went beyond college
calculus. Just because you don't understand it don't assume
everyone else can't.
I aced my graduate-level quantum class so hard that the professor
asked me to join his research group. I also have a degree in math.
You won't one up me on math skills.
It's not that the math is hard to follow it's that the science
is bad. Well there is no scientific theory just a lot of
predictions from models that never match reality.
No theory? The theory has been around for over a hundred years, and
is based on chemistry and physics that is even older. A thousand
refinements latter, and Arrhenius's original calculations are still
within the bounds of our models.
You seem to be confused about time scales. There is a fundamental
difference between predicting the next few years and predicting the
next few centuries.
You can start with trying to figure out how in the precambrian
CO2 was six times what it is today and temperatures were cooler.
Hmmm..
Different atmosphere, different biosphere, different geography,
different solar output. Apples and oranges, my friend.
Sean W. Malone|9.25.09 @ 11:32PM|#
Chad... what you said just there, I'm going to be honest, was
utter nonsense. Try again.
I hold no double standard. I require evidence, I require that said
evidence is grounded in sane epistemology. I
require that arguments conform to non-contradictory standards of
formal logic. The big problem with a lot of your arguments, Chad,
is this assumption of knowledge far beyond any plausible ability to
acquire it. For you, people - society as a whole - is a puzzle for
you to "solve"... They are nothing but pieces in the totalitarian
chess game in your head, sir. If only you could force people to do
this or that, the world would be so much better. Except you, like
many academic "intellectuals" have forgotten that you're not
playing with robots, but individuals with their own motivations,
wants & needs. You always skip that part... People are just too
stupid to be left free to make their own decisions in your world,
and it's not only insulting, but it's also been the underpinning of
the vast majority of the world's tyranny over hundreds of
years.
As for "much evidence, theory & research" to the contrary of
free markets... Cite some, jackass. After some 10+ years paying
extremely close attention, learning & educating myself, I have
yet to see one example of a so-called "market failure"
that wasn't caused by some government intervention - either from
some special subsidy or protection, to some control on prices,
wages, production, or from a lack of clearly defined property
rights.
It's kind of astounding that you haven't actually figured that out,
being so smart and all.
Tim|9.26.09 @ 2:22AM|#
I'm not sure if Chad is here to have a serious discussion, given
his statement that the health insurance industry is highly
competitive. Even President Obama doesn't run around saying this,
in fact one of the major premises of the entire fucking plan is
that the government needs to regulate h.i. or provide a government
run competitor to keep the companies honest since they are lacking
competition. On this point, and the point he made in the campaign
that employer based health insurance is retarded we both agree; the
difference is I want to increase competition by allowing companies
to compete across state lines in all markets and allow all
individuals to get the same tax treatment regardless of their
employment status. While the President just wants to keep the poor
polices in place that have made the system uncompetitive and try to
regulate out the numerous resulting problems. Don't forget that the
federal government controls 50% of health spending via Medicare and
Medicaid; but we have free market health care right Chad? I'm not
denying there are problems, but am denying that there is a free
market involved to blame. Private ownership doesn't imply free
markets, one can have private monopolies for example or a "hybrid
system."
Chad do you even know what a market failure is? They have actual
economic definitions, and aren't just outcomes you don't like.
Exactly what "market failures" does the health insurance system
suffer from, and why did these occur?
What private companies can control the money supply?
You are the one denying facts here. What exactly do you think
caused the recession if not the housing bubbled that was fueled by
loose money and affordable housing policies? Did the implicit
guarantee of bailing out to big to fail companies if they lost have
no effect on encouraging risky behavior? Businesses respond to
incentives, if you give them free money to speculate on houses and
say if you loose we will pick up part of the tab; what do you think
they will do? What regulations would have averted the financial
crisis without undermining the government's other policies to
increase housing and stimulate the economy via monetary
policy?
No one ever said that bad things don't happen without government,
you are just talking out of your ass. Why do you think we want a
government to prevent force and fraud, to provide for the national
defense, and solve other similar real market failures. What market
failure justified the federal government getting into housing in
the first place? Why does fannie mae and freddie mac exist?
"Touched the economy", give me a break. The GSEs owned half of the
mortgage market, and sure the fed just touches the economy; those
little tweaks to the interest rate have no effect at all on
it.
Come back when you want to have a serious debate.
jester|9.26.09 @ 7:13AM|#
"a ton of imbeciles"
I would have used 'a ton of stupid cunts' personally, but I am
hardly a scientist.
Your arguments were sound Malone. Chad and Tony are future Nobel
Laureates so you should feel especially proud.
Chad|9.26.09 @ 8:43AM|#
Sean W. Malone | September 25, 2009, 11:32pm | #
As for "much evidence, theory & research" to the contrary of
free markets... Cite some, jackass. After some 10+ years paying
extremely close attention, learning & educating myself, I have
yet to see one example of a so-called "market failure" that wasn't
caused by some government intervention - either from some special
subsidy or protection, to some control on prices, wages,
production, or from a lack of clearly defined property
rights.
Sean, the government is large, and is connected to everything in
one way or another. Therefore, you will ALWAYS be able to find such
a way to hypothesize blame. It is not a proof of your thesis,
however, which is that the government deserves (almost) all of the
blame, rather than a small or moderate fraction. I'll leave it to
you to type "market failure research" into google and spend your
day reading.
People were not speculating wildly because of CRA loan policy. They
were speculating wildly because everyone else was, and because the
market can stay irrational far longer than they could stay solvent
betting against it. Indeed, there have been a series of papers over
the years that have formalized this very concept: arbiteurs cannot
stop bubbles because the bubbles can out-last them. Therefore, even
the arbiteurs hop on the bubble (or better yet, whip it into a
frenzy), and try to use their knowledge to hop off just before
everyone else does. This is exactly what Goldman Sachs did quite
successfully.
The entire science of behavioral economics also refutes free market
theory. People are irrational, many times over. They often don't
make good long-term decisions for themselves, and certainly not
future generations.
You also seem unable to grasp that in some situations (say, the
atmosphere) there is no way to even create "clearly defined
property rights". Then what?
Chad|9.26.09 @ 8:48AM|#
Tim | September 26, 2009, 2:22am | #
You are the one denying facts here. What exactly do you think
caused the recession if not the housing bubbled that was fueled by
loose money and affordable housing policies...
I am not disputing that government shares some of the blame for
this mess. I am disputing the claim that they bear all of the
blame, because markets would just be perfect without the
government.
Bubbles and manias happened long before the Fed and monetary policy
existed. Bubbles exist in trivial things like art and comic books,
and even within virtual worlds, with no connection to monetary
policy. Bubbles happened when precious metals were the main form of
money. They are not a government-caused phenomenon, though the
government can trigger them or make them worse (or, on average,
mitigate them, as our government does).
jester|9.26.09 @ 10:02AM|#
People are irrational, many times over.
Chad, we've been trying to tell you that nicely.
jester|9.26.09 @ 10:06AM|#
The entire science of behavioral economics also refutes free
market theory.
Rather it supports it. Your choice of the word refute shows your
inherent bias.
Freak!
jester|9.26.09 @ 10:08AM|#
because markets would just be perfect without the
government.
That is what we call a truism, dipshit. No one is claiming
brilliance for this observation.
Chad|9.26.09 @ 10:32AM|#
jester | September 26, 2009, 10:08am | #
That is what we call a truism, dipshit. No one is claiming
brilliance for this observation.
Therein lies the problem. You don't even believe that your beliefs
could possibly be wrong. That is why you are always going to be on
the fringe.
Sean W. Malone|9.26.09 @ 11:58AM|#
Coming from one of the most self-righteous jackasses I've ever
encountered who has never once conceded even the slightest
possibility that using force against people who aren't doing
exactly what you want them to do is maybe not ok, that's
funny.
I'm happy to be on the fringe if it means not being an
authoritarian asshole.
Chad|9.26.09 @ 12:56PM|#
I earn my self-righteousness, Sean, by practicing everything I
preach...and proving how easy it is.
My philsophy, such as it is, is utilitarian. I do what works, and
advocate that the government does what works. Sometimes this means
the government works better than the alternatives, sometimes not,
and sometimes a mixed system works best. Unlike you, I am not bound
to an ideology and therefore can more clearly see what does and
does not work. Unlike you, I have a mixture of far right, far left
and moderate positions, and have switched my positions as evidence
accumulated or the situation changed. Your ideology (which was once
mine, when I was young) is inflexible, trapped by its own logical
purity. I doubt you have changed your mind on anything in years,
and seriously doubt you ever will.
I also dispute your use of the classic libertarian word "force". A
much more appropriate word for most of the policies I advocate is
"nudge". It is more accurate, but unfortunately for you, sounds a
lot less threatening.
Michael Ejercito|9.26.09 @ 12:58PM|#
The bulk of the "solutions" so far proposed are widely understood as being highly damaging to productivity and human well-being.
The biggest piece of evidence is that the
obvious quick fix is being ignored.
The obvious quick fix was discovered before global warming was
considered to be a problem, and yet the obvious quick fix is being
ignored. Could it be that the real agenda is to destroy Western
industrial civilization.
Except you, like many academic "intellectuals" have forgotten that you're not playing with robots, but individuals with their own motivations, wants & needs. You always skip that part... People are just too stupid to be left free to make their own decisions in your world, and it's not only insulting, but it's also been the underpinning of the vast majority of the world's tyranny over hundreds of years.
Chad is like those people who argue that the only acceptable
solution to fighting teen pregnancy is abstinence-only sex
education.
Of course, it is plausible that he is one of those
people.
Sean W. Malone|9.26.09 @ 2:43PM|#
"Nudge" huh? Yeah... I read that
book too.
Your "utilitarianism" is absurdist bullshit Chad. You claim to be
selecting your positions on the basis of "what works best" without
bothering to consider that there is no one-size-fits-all solution
to most problems - or even that a hell of a lot of the problems you
perceive are actually just the result of living in a world which
sometimes conflicts with your ordinal preferences. Your position is
the height of narcissism and hubris. Whatever people do that isn't
to your liking should be stopped, often by making what those people
do punishable by fine, jail, or if they continue to refuse to do
things the way you want, violence.
Object to it all you want, but everything any government does is
backed by physical force. If you fine someone or tax them into
modifying their behavior, and they don't pay it, then what? You put
them in jail... and if they refuse to go, then what? Guns. It's
that simple.
I don't know why you pretend that utilitarianism is somehow a
brilliant philosophical position. It's ultimately one of two
things: 1. Cheap justification for imposing your personal
preferences on others in the name of pragmatism, or 2. abject
nihilism which attempts to avoid actually holding any moral value
at all other than ones arbitrarily chosen.
Life is important to you? Under utilitarianism... Why? Just
because? Obviously the lives of some people are worth less than
others, individual lives aren't important but groups are? Peter
Singer essentially espouses that position all the time. Freedom
isn't worth much to you either, people can just do whatever your
rulers think is best. Well fuck that, sir.
The problem is, a life without the ability to choose for yourself
who you are, what you'll become, and what people and material
objects you surround yourself with isn't much of a life.
Subservience to some authority isn't a life worth living. But you
can wash that away by pretending to be perfectly logical and
utilitarian, only doing "what works". Well Chad, what exactly is
the GOAL? What are you working towards? If history and rational
thought is any judge, your positions lead us straight to a
totalitarian state where the majority of people will be living in
misery. Maybe you expect to be in the ruling class, of course -
which would make your position pretty utilitarian after all - but
few others will be.
But hey, why actually learn from history, right? This time we'll
get it right.
Sean W. Malone|9.26.09 @ 2:54PM|#
And exactly HOW do you "practice what you preach" Chad? Do you
donate additional percentages of your income to taxes each year? Do
you voluntarily send government more money? Do you send letters to
your congress-people asking them to impose more regulations on the
things you enjoy doing, or asking them to restrict your
choices some more?
Some how I doubt it.
My guess is that you drive a Prius like a douchebag, and have some
bullshit Coexist bumper-sticker covered up by your quickly-fading
Obama "Yes We Can" magnet. Perhaps you occasionally give to
charity, but like most liberal assholes, you don't do it nearly as
much or as often as you talk about and significantly less than
those of us who have placed a high value on personal responsibility
& liberty. And I'd stake just about any wager you want on the
fact that you most assuredly have never invited a homeless guy into
your own home as a gesture of compassion, and offered to let him
stay there and share the wealth.
I bet you've never picked up the phone and called a local homeless
shelter and offered to buy one resident health-insurance out of
your own pocket.
No Chad, I'm betting you haven't earned the right to be
self-righteous in the way you are because people like you just
don't actually put their money where their mouths are. You talk a
big game, and you're absolutely fine with forcing other
people to do what you think is right, but when it comes to
that same force applied against you - demanding that you do things
you are unhappy with, you just squeal like a piggy.
Chad|9.26.09 @ 4:30PM|#
Sean W. Malone | September 26, 2009, 2:54pm | #
And exactly HOW do you "practice what you preach" Chad? Do you
donate additional percentages of your income to taxes each
year?
Actually, I do Sean. I bet you weren't expecting that, were you?
Specifically, I forego the charitable deduction, which in effect is
several hundred dollars in the federal government's coffers each
year. I also donate regularly to the national park system and a
state university (my alma mater). I also make efforts to put a few
dollars in the local system as well, by participating in whatever
sales or events they have. And of course, I usually vote "yes" on
any tax increase. On top of that, I also "donate" by purchasing
from local merchants rather than Walmart when the opportunity
arises. I consider it in effect a payment for the pleasant ambience
and neighborhoods the small stores create.
Do you send letters to your congress-people asking them to
impose more regulations on the things you enjoy doing, or asking
them to restrict your choices some more?
There is nothing that I do that I believe should be banned. There
are things that I do that are either over or under subsidized, and
I call for the appropriate change, regardless of whether this moves
money in or out of my pocket. For example, I like to golf. Golf is
water intensive, and water is heavily and inappropriately
subsidized. The subsidies should be removed, which would increase
the cost of one of my hobbies. I will deal with it.
My guess is that you drive a Prius like a douchebag, and have
some bullshit Coexist bumper-sticker covered up by your
quickly-fading Obama "Yes We Can" magnet.
Naah, I am too much of a cheap bastard to own a Prius. Perhaps when
my old beater finally dies, I will do it. It is FAR cheaper to keep
the beater and offset (btw, I approximately offset twice over, just
to be sure).
Perhaps you occasionally give to charity, but like most liberal
assholes, you don't do it nearly as much or as often as you talk
about and significantly less than those of us who have placed a
high value on personal responsibility & liberty.
Sorry, wrong again. I donate far more than the average, about 5% of
my after tax income.
And I'd stake just about any wager you want on the fact that
you most assuredly have never invited a homeless guy into your own
home as a gesture of compassion, and offered to let him stay there
and share the wealth.
Actually, you are 100% wrong again Sean. I once housed a homeless
person (whom I knew, not a stranger) for about six months while he
got things back together.
I bet you've never picked up the phone and called a local
homeless shelter and offered to buy one resident health-insurance
out of your own pocket.
Finally, you have gotten so specific that you have found something
I haven't done. I've donated to the shelters, of course.
but when it comes to that same force applied against you -
demanding that you do things you are unhappy with, you just squeal
like a piggy.
Nope, I am perfectly happy for every principle I espouse to be
applied to me.
Chad|9.26.09 @ 4:50PM|#
Sean W. Malone | September 26, 2009, 2:43pm | #
Your "utilitarianism" is absurdist bullshit Chad. You claim to be
selecting your positions on the basis of "what works best" without
bothering to consider that there is no one-size-fits-all solution
to most problems
Which is why I do not always advocate "one sized fits all"
solutions. For example, the carbon tax, which I support, is the
very antithesis of a one-sized-fits-all solution. In other cases,
such as health care, I do support one-sized-fits-all national
plans, because that is what is working best abroad.
or even that a hell of a lot of the problems you perceive are
actually just the result of living in a world which sometimes
conflicts with your ordinal preferences.
Well, if someone out there honestly likes paying 50% more for
insecure health insurance, and likes consuming everything in sight
and leaving devastation for his or her grandchildren, I stand proud
in calling for my ordinal preferences to be pushed upon them.
Life is important to you? Under utilitarianism... Why? Just
because? Obviously the lives of some people are worth less than
others, individual lives aren't important but groups are? Peter
Singer essentially espouses that position all the time.
Individual lives are important, but not infinitely important. There
is value in protecting invidual lives, because it gives us a very
real sense of security in our person. But that value is finite, and
it is very possible for situations to arise where protecting an
individual life is not worth the cost.
Freedom isn't worth much to you either
We just have different ideas of the word "freedom". For you, it
only means "freedom from the government or other threat of force".
For me, it is a much broader concept of "freedom to do". There is
often a tradeoff between the two. Who is more free, the man with no
government restrictions on his actions but no resources to do much
of anything but scrounge for food, or the man with a few government
restrictions on self-destructive and outwardly harmful actions, but
with the resources to live, travel, learn, and work in a variety of
places?
Despite all of our laws here in this country, I feel that there are
virtually no practical restrictions on my freedom. I can
go where I want, say what I want, learn what I want, with whomever
I want. The same is true in what you consider very non-free states
such as Sweden.
Sean W. Malone|9.26.09 @ 10:05PM|#
The "freedom to do" is negative liberty, Chad. The freedom to "have" is what you advocate, and that intrinsically means the "freedom" to force other people to give up their labor & products for you and those you support.
Chad|9.26.09 @ 10:30PM|#
You are right, Sean. There are times where I believe it is
patently obvious that there are rights to "have", at the minor
expensive of those who "have" a helluva lot. That is the price you
pay to live in a civilized society.
There are certain things one must "have" in order to have any
meaningful freedom whatsoever, and it requires little impairment of
the freedoms of those who already "have" in order to ensure that
every gets a share.
The Libertarian Guy|9.27.09 @ 1:28PM|#
The concept of "in order to ensure that everyone gets a share" has to be one of the most destructive, dangerous concepts ever devised.
The Libertarian Guy|9.27.09 @ 1:31PM|#
"I forego the charitable deduction, which in effect is several
hundred dollars in the federal government's coffers each
year."
Where said government can waste it on things we do not need.
You're an idiot for not taking back your own money, Chad.
Michael Ejercito|9.27.09 @ 1:31PM|#
You are right, Sean. There are times where I believe it is patently obvious that there are rights to "have", at the minor expensive of those who "have" a helluva lot. That is the price you pay to live in a civilized society.
Some people believe whites have a right to be privileged on account
of skin color.
Chad|9.27.09 @ 2:12PM|#
The Libertarian Guy | September 27, 2009,
Where said government can waste it on things we do not need. You're
an idiot for not taking back your own money, Chad.
The fact that it shuts up greedy, self-serving Republican is
priceless.
Neu Mejican|9.28.09 @ 2:40AM|#
Sean W.
There are important differences between economics and climate
sciences. The modeling they use is, really, quite different.
Really.
It is an important point to explore and understand.
|9.28.09 @ 2:30PM|#
No theory? The theory has been around for over a hundred
years, and is based on chemistry and physics that is even
older.
One would think a mathematician might understand the difference
between a hypothesis and a theory and the process by which one the
becomes the other.
You seem to be confused about time scales. There is a
fundamental difference between predicting the next few years and
predicting the next few centuries.
No I understand. You seem not to. We were in a an interglacial warm
period before any anthropogenic CO2 existed. It's due to end soon,
may already be in the process.
Different atmosphere, different biosphere, different geography,
different solar output. Apples and oranges, my friend.
A simple "I have no clue" would have been the honest answer.
You could also explain with the increases in CO2 how temps have
been droppinh in the past few years.
You will answer: It's complicated. I will answer, then you must
admit two things. AGW models have been proved not to be predictive,
and you admit you don't understand the theory.
Except when they predict warming.. despite the models don't
work.
Warmist 'science' works just like Disney economics. Cobble up a
model that sort of matches past data but predicts what you want it
to. That's why they are both so confused and never work.
My philsophy, such as it is, is utilitarian. I do what works,
and advocate that the government does what works. Sometimes this
means the government works better than the alternatives, sometimes
not, and sometimes a mixed system works best.
I'm a consequentialist. I want the greatest good for the greatest
number. I don't believe you are or you would actually study history
and the facts. The only things that government has ever
demonstrated ability to do better than the private sector are the
things that the private sector cannot or will not do.
Who is more free, the man with no government restrictions on
his actions but no resources to do much of anything but scrounge
for food, or the man with a few government restrictions on
self-destructive and outwardly harmful actions, but with the
resources to live, travel, learn, and work in a variety of
places?
False dichotomy and begs the question. These aren't the options. A
free man is free to achieve and the American experiment shows
that's what people want to be free, will go to great trouble to be
free and tend to succeed when they can. The history of planned
economies show the opposite.
The choice is much more simple. Shall people compete with each
other to provide the best, cheapest, most plentiful product or
service? Or shall people compete for government influence to gain
an unfair advantage?
We're tending to the latter, and we see the results in markets the
government 'manages' your answer is more of the same.
And you expect different results.
That is the price you pay to live in a civilized
society.
Wrong. A price is a voluntarily agreed upon exchange. It's not
voluntary so it's not a price. It's merely theft.
Tim G.|9.30.09 @ 11:50AM|#
Any time any major media outlet allows anyone to devote an
appreciable amount of time to the libertarian viewpoint, that is a
success. I hope the show does well.
My only criticism of this article is a tiny style one: Try not to
hyperlink to tinyurl.com! Use the full link, if you can.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/06/are-url-shorteners-a-necessary-evil-or-just-evil/
Forshorn|10.2.09 @ 11:30PM|#
I know I'll like whatever Mr. Stossel writes, but I'm sorry he's moving to Fox for one reason. He is easier to dismiss there by all the people who dismiss anything on Fox. On 20/20 he had the sheen of the mainstream, which made his point of view all the mroe startling. While John is not a conservative, the increasing polarization of the political spectrum has forced him to be classed with the conservatives, where most of the culture can pretend he doesn't exist.
Leave a Comment
More Articles by John Stossel
- Worse Than Taxes, John Stossel, November 19, 2009
- The U.S. House of Presumptuous Meddlers, John Stossel, November 12, 2009
- The Double Standard About Bias in Journalism, John Stossel, November 5, 2009
Related Articles (Economics, Television)
- Treating Wall Street Like the Mafia, Anthony Randazzo, November 20, 2009
- Worse Than Taxes, John Stossel, November 19, 2009
- Globalization With a Human Face, Shikha Dalmia, November 18, 2009
- Where’s That Inflation?, Veronique de Rugy, November 17, 2009
- Bernanke’s Philosopher, Penn Bullock, November 17, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245