Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Howard Rich writes of John Stossel's conversion from big government liberal to free market libertarian:

"...I started out by viewing the marketplace as a cruel place, where you need intervention by government and lawyers to protect people...But after watching the regulators work, I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer.”

In fact, Stossel realized that in most cases regulators and bureaucrats only made matters worse, spending billions of tax dollars on so-called “solutions” that invariably wound up creating larger problems....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... t_syndrome" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stossel's an idiot no matter what side he is on.

native wrote:Howard Rich writes of John Stossel's conversion from big government liberal to free market libertarian:

"...I started out by viewing the marketplace as a cruel place, where you need intervention by government and lawyers to protect people...But after watching the regulators work, I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer.”

In fact, Stossel realized that in most cases regulators and bureaucrats only made matters worse, spending billions of tax dollars on so-called “solutions” that invariably wound up creating larger problems....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... t_syndrome" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

John Stossel has been a Libertarian for 20 years... how is this a current article







This article might be blathering nonsense and ancient news...
but Stossel is no idiot in fact I really enjoy his stuff and always learn something (He writes great books too)

“But after watching the regulators work, I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer.”

National Libertarian Party annual convention:





Alan Greenspan's horse:

John Maynard Keynes best friend:



FDR's favorite pet:



The woman of Paul Krugman's dreams:



Stossel is right...markets are inherently perfect and only go awry when they are manipulated, either by someone trying to slant it in their favor or much more commonly, through government intervention.

We hear the left crying for more regulation, but we have seen what happens when one of the left's holy grails comes under fire from government regulators:

[youtube][/youtube]

Keynesian Europe is recovering faster and never experienced the unemployment levels we did. The more heavily regulated Canadian banking system required no bail out.

Your faith is truly admirable.

kalm wrote:Keynesian Europe is recovering faster and never experienced the unemployment levels we did. The more heavily regulated Canadian banking system required no bail out.

Your faith is truly admirable.

It's also the highest rated banking system in the world. But they're socialists, so fuck 'em. Butt fuck 'em.

kalm wrote:Keynesian Europe is recovering faster and never experienced the unemployment levels we did. The more heavily regulated Canadian banking system required no bail out.

Your faith is truly admirable.

Umm...Europe's unemployment rate has always been historically much higher than the US...usually by several percentage points.

Here's just a little snapshot of history for you:

March 2005 EU unemployment rate: 8.9%
March 2005 US unemployment rate: 5.1%

March 2006 EU unemployment rate: 8.4%
March 2006 US unemployment rate: 4.7%

March 2007 EU unemployment rate: 7.3%
March 2007 US unemployment rate: 4.4%

March 2008 EU unemployment rate: 6.7%
March 2008 US unemployment rate: 5.1%

Watch the video i embedded. US banks wouldn't have needed a bailout either if the Donks in Congress would have listened to the REGULATOR who uncovered the massive amounts of fraud inside Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004...the government entities who were ground zero for financial crisis four years later.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:Keynesian Europe is recovering faster and never experienced the unemployment levels we did. The more heavily regulated Canadian banking system required no bail out.

Your faith is truly admirable.

Umm...Europe's unemployment rate has always been historically much higher than the US...usually by several percentage points.

Here's just a little snapshot of history for you:

March 2005 EU unemployment rate: 8.9%
March 2005 US unemployment rate: 5.1%

March 2006 EU unemployment rate: 8.4%
March 2006 US unemployment rate: 4.7%

March 2007 EU unemployment rate: 7.3%
March 2007 US unemployment rate: 4.4%

March 2008 EU unemployment rate: 6.7%
March 2008 US unemployment rate: 5.1%

Watch the video i embedded. US banks wouldn't have needed a bailout either if the Donks in Congress would have listened to the REGULATOR who uncovered the massive amounts of fraud inside Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004...the government entities who were ground zero for financial crisis four years later.

And if you notice I was referring to the current crisis so it would be interesting to see the EU's 2009 and 2010 rates. Of course it would be even more interesting to seperate countries like England, Ireland, and Iceland that adopted a more neo-liberal economic approach versus the classically Keynesian countries like Germany and Scandinavia. I'm guessing the former's unemployment #'s severity of crisis drive the entire EU's #'s down.

I admit I find Fannie and Freddie problematic and recognize the unintended consequences of many liberal reforms. I will watch the video and respond when I get a chance.

kalm wrote: And if you notice I was referring to the current crisis so it would be interesting to see the EU's 2009 and 2010 rates. Of course it would be even more interesting to seperate countries like England, Ireland, and Iceland that adopted a more neo-liberal economic approach versus the classically Keynesian countries like Germany and Scandinavia. I'm guessing the former's unemployment #'s severity of crisis drive the entire EU's #'s down.

I admit I find Fannie and Freddie problematic and recognize the unintended consequences of many liberal reforms. I will watch the video and respond when I get a chance.

The UK, Germany, France, Spain, etc...it doesn't matter, all those countries by and large have much higher unemployment rates than the US, historically. The Scandinavian countries are the only ones in Europe who can come close to US in unemployment rates, but those numbers are jaded since well over 30% of the workforce in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc. work for the government.

Baldy wrote:
Watch the video i embedded. US banks wouldn't have needed a bailout either if the Donks in Congress would have listened to the REGULATOR who uncovered the massive amounts of fraud inside Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004...the government entities who were ground zero for financial crisis four years later.

I believe you...
but in 2004 didn't the republicans have a majority in the House and Senate..?

Chizzang wrote:

Baldy wrote:
Watch the video i embedded. US banks wouldn't have needed a bailout either if the Donks in Congress would have listened to the REGULATOR who uncovered the massive amounts of fraud inside Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004...the government entities who were ground zero for financial crisis four years later.

I believe you...
but in 2004 didn't the republicans have a majority in the House and Senate..?

ooops.

Chizzang wrote:

Baldy wrote:
Watch the video i embedded. US banks wouldn't have needed a bailout either if the Donks in Congress would have listened to the REGULATOR who uncovered the massive amounts of fraud inside Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004...the government entities who were ground zero for financial crisis four years later.

I believe you...
but in 2004 didn't the republicans have a majority in the House and Senate..?

Yes, but what you and the poundpuppy don't realize (I'm sure you do. The pup, I very seriously doubt.) is that the Republicans didn't have 60 votes, so the Donks could tie up any type of reforms. Hell, Obama had 60 votes and he still had to sell his soul to get his Obamacare passed.

Baldy wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
I believe you...
but in 2004 didn't the republicans have a majority in the House and Senate..?

Yes, but what you and the poundpuppy don't realize (I'm sure you do. The pup, I very seriously doubt.) is that the Republicans didn't have 60 votes, so the Donks could tie up any type of reforms. Hell, Obama had 60 votes and he still had to sell his soul to get his Obamacare passed.

Wasn't it McCain who made some hay about Fanny and Freddie back then..?

Baldy wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
I believe you...
but in 2004 didn't the republicans have a majority in the House and Senate..?

Yes, but what you and the poundpuppy don't realize (I'm sure you do. The pup, I very seriously doubt.) is that the Republicans didn't have 60 votes, so the Donks could tie up any type of reforms. Hell, Obama had 60 votes and he still had to sell his soul to get his Obamacare passed.

Not having those 60 votes seemed to really hurt them when it came time for No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drug Plan, Attacking Iraq, etc, etc.....seriously, Baldy, did they even try to force the issue? At least there could have been a public record for voters to use in 2008/2010. No, instead the Republicans who I believed held the chairmanships when they were in the majority never even made a solid attempt at getting a bill out of committee...perhaps I'm mist5aken, but as it stands, both parties are equally culpable for the current mess IMO...

Chizzang wrote:

Baldy wrote:
Yes, but what you and the poundpuppy don't realize (I'm sure you do. The pup, I very seriously doubt.) is that the Republicans didn't have 60 votes, so the Donks could tie up any type of reforms. Hell, Obama had 60 votes and he still had to sell his soul to get his Obamacare passed.

Wasn't it McCain who made some hay about Fanny and Freddie back then..?

Yep. Not a big McCain fan here but I will give him credit for trying to regulate and reform what we now know was a corrupt and incompetent Fannie and Freddie. I'll also be more than happy to condemn Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and a multitude of other Dems for standing in the way.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Wasn't it McCain who made some hay about Fanny and Freddie back then..?

Yep. Not a big McCain fan here but I will give him credit for trying to regulate and reform what we now know was a corrupt and incompetent Fannie and Freddie. I'll also be more than happy to condemn Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and a multitude of other Dems for standing in the way.

Agree, but if Republicans were in majority, it wasn't just Dems standing in the way of McCain's efforts. Not trying to absolve the Dems (I do hold them more responsible on this issue), but just like to point out there was very little political will or leadership from either party on this issue....too much money was being made (& donated)....