Comments (23)

• Ace

  It was a great episode. Looking at the blogs on the write-up page, there were individuals defending the government spending with the arguments of the Multiplier and insisting that Hoover was a free-market advocate that sat back and did nothing. Painful, Really. It was good to see Peter Leeson on there though, very intelligent guy

  Published: March 14, 2009 8:07 AM

• Pat

  "there were individuals [...] insisting that Hoover was a free-market advocate that sat back and did nothing."

  If they think that Hoover was a free-market advocate person, I wonder what is their idea of big government. Hell, I am even tempted to think Obama's government (At least for now) is a minimal government for those people.

  Published: March 14, 2009 8:27 AM

• RickC

  I watched a guy on Cavuto earlier in the night and he must have said, "We've had 30 years of free market and look at where we are. It's time for something new." or a variation of this a least five times. Cavuto never called him on it. I'd like to see someone like Cavuto, or Beck set one of these guys up then march out a line of people carrying the equivalent of the 74,000 pages of regulations currently on the Federal Register.

  Then put up graphs of regulatory staffing numbers for the last 30 years. Then a graph showing the growth of Federal employment over the last 30 years. Then a graph of spending per capita on education. Then grapha on per capita spending for welfare programs, Medicare, Medicaid, SS, foreign aid, the military, the drug war, and on infinitum.

  It would be funny.

  Published: March 14, 2009 8:52 AM

• Franklin

  Rick C says: "Then put up graphs of regulatory staffing numbers for the last 30 years... growth of Federal employment...graph of spending per capita on education....for welfare programs, Medicare, Medicaid, SS, foreign aid, the military, the drug war...."

  I shake your hand, but unfortunately this will never happen. It requires some thought and analytical intelligence. How arrogant I must be? Hardly. I'm sure if you sat Beck's and Cavuto's ass down, or corralled CNBC exec producers in a classroom, their dexterity in assessing the statistics would be formidable.
  But that's not the business in which they work. Their paychecks are entertainment-based. Their objective is capturing viewers and creating theater.
  
  While they are chatting with talking heads, shills for the government, and corporate welfare recipients, their minds are already focused on scheduling tomorrow's program, and next week's. It's a reactive, seat-of-the-pants, run-through-the-hallways industry. And the show must go on.
  Prepare graphs and discuss reality? I highly doubt it. And it is quite sad.

  That is the only explanation. If not, then they are over-paid dolts, quite arrogant in their own right, mired in the Wall Street and Beltway circus, so deeply, that they couldn't decipher between a federal mandate and a free market.

  It's one or the other.

  Cheers.
  F.
  

  Published: March 14, 2009 10:16 AM

• Ace

  I loved the part where Stossel was interviewing the politician and asking if solving the problem that was caused by debt, with more debt would work and the politician says "thats what most economists believe" and then asked if HE thinks it will work, he responds "...I hope so". I was laughing so hard at what an airhead this guy is. And dont get me started on Maxine Waters...

  Published: March 14, 2009 12:00 PM

• DD

  Stossel is great, but I wish he would a little more challenge the morality and phillosphy of all of these programs and not just the economics or science.

  For example, the pre-K is nonesense as he points out, but what about the Coercive act of extorting fees from parents who may not approve, or forcing parents who don't want to send their kids at all to pay for others.

  Published: March 14, 2009 12:00 PM

• Dean

  Were any of you able to watch 20/20 last night? I had the f'n ACC Basketball Tournament on all night on ABC. Are they going to rebroadcast it?

  Published: March 14, 2009 1:01 PM

• Curt Howland

  I try to keep in mind that Stossel came to "libertarianism" from the Left. He doesn't challenge taxation _itself_, it's the fact that it just doesn't work that he focuses upon.

  I'm glad to have him reaching the conclusion of Liberty through rigorous experience, because if he did challenge his interviewees on "morality" or "ethics", he'd come across as being self-righteous or egotistical.

  His most effective tool, and remember this is in television time where 3 minutes is a lifetime, is his "But, does it work?" byline.

  I was sad not to recognize any Mises Institute regulars in the panel of economists. It was very good to see Walter Williams, though. He takes some of the wind out of the leftists sails just by being there.

  Published: March 14, 2009 1:17 PM

• Franklin

  Walt is terrific. I missed this particular broadcast, but 'll always remember him being interviewed years ago (heck, may have been Stossel then too). Walt was comparing the politican to the common thief who steals your wallet. He implied the thief was the more noble of the two....

  His assertion, paraphrased, "The thief steals your money and runs, whereas, the politican is first going to spend 30 minutes boring you to death, explaining why stealing from you is a good idea...."

  Great stuff.

  Published: March 14, 2009 1:59 PM

• Ace

  Franklin,
  The analogy of the politician and the thief is great. As Hans Hoppe also pointed out, the thief will only strike in scattered frequencies and the person can invest in better defense to prevent the crime, whereas when the government steals, its on a regular basis and you have to comply. This leads to high time preferences for the citizens that (as Hoppe argued) lead to the decivilization of society in many respects

  Published: March 14, 2009 2:07 PM

• Magnus

  The analogy of the politician and the thief comes from Lysander Spooner's No Treason No. 6: The Constitution of No Authority (1870):

  "The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

  Published: March 14, 2009 5:29 PM

• Mark Hubbard

  Listening to the two politicians was a very scary thing.

  Published: March 14, 2009 11:54 PM

• Andrew_M_Garland

  Keynes' economic theory is a crazy, economic defense of robbery.

  "Your Honor, my client robbed these people, but in his defense, he spent it much more quickly than they would have. These people will work to replace the money in much less time than my client could earn it himself. This involuntary transaction is an efficient, cost effective way to inject money into the economy. My client's aggressive program of self-help has already eliminated some income inequality. It is a start."

  Cargo Cult Economics

  Published: March 15, 2009 12:15 AM

• JJ

  I really loved that episode of 20/20.

  My wife and I watch it almost every week but it's not normally so liberty-centric. It was nice that Stossel could say some anti-government positions on national tv while his co-host was away.

  Published: March 15, 2009 12:19 AM

• Dan

  loved the bullhorn.

  Published: March 15, 2009 9:38 AM

• Austroglide

  Rick C: Yes! Very nice work.

  Magnus: Awesome quote. Thanks for the source.

  Published: March 15, 2009 9:54 AM

• dean

  Again, none of you had an issue with the 20/20 broadcast being pre-empted by college basketball?

  All I saw was the damn ACC tournament when I tuned to my local ABC channel at 10pm EST

  Published: March 15, 2009 2:13 PM

• David

  Glad to see this post now. I happened to pick up Reason magazine in the library the other day and saw an interview with John Stossel in there.

  He mentioned that he had stumbled on the libertarian/Austrian economic point of view back when he was doing a lot of consumer advocate type reporting. However, he also mentioned in the interview that he was not very aware of the current web-based offerings in this area, since he mostly reads print magazines and newspapers.

  Maybe we can let him know more about Mises.org and all the resources that one can find here (and at similarly focused free-market/libertarian websites). Contact info and message boards are availble at Stossel's ABC news webpage.
  

  Published: March 15, 2009 9:39 PM

• Horst Muhlmann

  Dean,

  Do you live in the Southeast? Perhaps 20/20 wasn't pre-empted everywhere.

  I wasn't watching TV during that time, so I cannot comment further.

  Published: March 16, 2009 9:20 AM

• David Martin

  That last segment was irresponsible: "Look, it's still the most free country you can live in, and you still have opportunities!"

  Yes, people will strive to succeed and prosper in *spite* of what the government is doing to them. The middle class is being destroyed by government and its central bank. What used to be a single-earner family has evolved into a dual-earner family. Where a kid could come out of high school and get a decent paying apprentice job in industry, he now has far fewer options.

  A free market provides much, much more than our current corporatist state.

  I wonder how many of the guys enjoying their expensive toys bought them on the credit bubble, or took out home equity in the housing boom to finance their fun?

  Published: March 16, 2009 4:41 PM

• AV

  "I wonder how many of the guys enjoying their expensive toys bought them on the credit bubble, or took out home equity in the housing boom to finance their fun?"

  Guilty as charged. And it sucks. But only myself to blame.

  Published: March 16, 2009 7:49 PM

• David Martin

  They don't call it a "cluster" of economic errors for nothing AV, a lot of good people get lured into making bad decisions when the central bank puts us into a credit-fueled boom.

  Had I been studying the Austrian school pre-2003, I may have done a few things differently myself...

  Published: March 16, 2009 8:49 PM

• sikiş

  #

  That last segment was irresponsible: "Look, it's still the most free country you can live in, and you still have opportunities!"

  Yes, people will strive to succeed and prosper in *spite* of what the government is doing to them. The middle class is being destroyed by government and its central bank. What used to be a single-earner family has evolved into a dual-earner family. sikiş Where a kid could come out of high school and get a decent paying apprentice job in industry, he now has far fewer options.

  A free market provides much, much more than our current corporatist state.

  I wonder how many of the guys enjoying their expensive toys bought them on the credit bubble, or took out home equity in the housing boom to finance their fun?

  Published: April 13, 2009 9:55 PM