John Stossel: "Give Me a Break!" on 20/20 Friday
On Friday (Mar. 13) ABC's "20/20" program will air John Stossel's special, "Bailouts and Bull," 10 p.m. ET. With the help of Drew Carey and Reason TV, they look at Big Government's promise to "fix" the economy and other bull:
The Conceit of the Ruling Class
Politicians and pundits say government must do "something." It sound like a Viagra ad: "Does your economy have performance issues? If it's hard to achieve and maintain growth, 'stimulus' is right for you!" But shouldn't "stimulus" come with a warning label? "Side effects may include hyper-inflation, dollar devaluation, horrible debt, growth of welfare state, and unrealized expectations. Stimulus has not been proven successful, so it should not be used in the hopes of achieving actual growth ..."
While politicians claim that "all" or a "consensus" of economists agree that something "big" must be done, more than 300 economists say that the government's action do more harm than good. John Stossel interviews some of the economists, calculates the amount the stimulus costs per taxpayer (about $16,000) and asks lawmakers: Where will you get the money? If too much debt was a problem, why is more debt now a solution?
8 Comments:
Side effects may include hyper-inflation, dollar devaluation
Every serious economist (including even Mark Perry) says inflation is not a problem and in fact deflation is a concern. The dollar is at multi-year highs. But this fool is still talking about hyper-inflation. People really need to understand that inflation is "too much money chasing too few goods". We might have "too much money" right now, but its not chasing anything.
Machiavelli,
its true that inflationary concerns are not very warrented in the short run. The problem is that monetary policy has at minimum 6-8 month lags and once we do start growing again and there isnt a massive flight to saftey, investors may not be willing to buy all these new treasuries, driving up real interest rates. Allt his money that is being printed will also be "chasing something" when risk appetite increases and consuer spending resumes. The inflationary worry is the intermediate to long term concern. In your opinion, do "serious" economists not look down the road more then the present?
Love John Stossel's reports on 20/20. He tends to cut through the BS and get to the heart of the matter which is what we need now, a dose of reality. After Stossel's report, visit, americanboom.com and see what some American companies are doing to help our American economy.
American companies move beyond the grasping hands of Democrats
ZUG, Switzerland, March 12 (Reuters) - The tidy towns and mountain vistas of Switzerland are an unlikely setting for an oil boom.
Yet a wave of energy companies has in the last few months announced plans to move to Switzerland -- mainly for its appeal as a low-tax corporate domicile that looks relatively likely to stay out of reach of Barack Obama's tax-seeking administration.
In a country with scant crude oil production of its own, the virtual energy boom has changed the canton or state of Zug, about 30 minutes' drive from Zurich, beyond all recognition. Its economy was based on farming until it slashed tax rates to attract commerce after World War Two.
Local authorities say about 13 percent of full-time jobs in Zug canton are in the raw materials sector.
Over the past six months companies including offshore drilling contractors Noble Corp and Transocean, energy-focused engineering group Foster Wheeler and oilfield services company Weatherfield International have all announced plans to shift domicile to Switzerland.
"Switzerland has a stable and developed tax regime and a network of tax treaties with most countries where we operate,"
Transocean Chief Executive Bob Long said in a statement in October, when it announced its move. "As a result, the redomestication will improve our ability to maintain a competitive worldwide effective corporate tax rate."
Link
And American drug manufacturers may not be far behind:
March 11 (Bloomberg) -- Amgen Inc. and Genentech Inc. and other companies making biologic drugs would face generic competition after five years of exclusive sales under legislation proposed by Representative Henry Waxman that rejects protection sought by biotechnology companies.
Link
As Daniel Henninger wrote in the WSJ the other day:
Today, frontline Democrats see the private sector as doing two things: It produces tax revenue for $3.9 trillion federal budgets, and it shafts workers. The private sector in the Democratic worldview is necessary but nasty. Their leadership gives the impression of not having the simplest understanding of how an employer's life unfolds day to day.
The exodus of American companiesis just beginning. I guess that Obama and the Democrats have forgotten that socialism doesn't work without a wall.
Obama and the Democrats have forgotten that socialism doesn't work without a wall.
Why do you think they're working so hard on "climate change" regulation through the UN, squashing "unfair tax competition", and "tax harmonization"? Precisely so you can't escape by moving to another country.
Just imagine how rich the countries will be that don't buy into the global warming farce in comparison to the countries who's leaders take them down this road to economic ruin...
EJ, your treatise, while spot on, is far over an idiot like Mach's head (when you think of Machiavelli, don't think The Prince, at least not until after The Prince has gone through multiple trepaning operations...).
Mach:
WHERE'S THE MONEY COMING FROM?
You're a DUMBASS.
Shut up!
> Why do you think they're working so hard on "climate change" regulation through the UN, squashing "unfair tax competition", and "tax harmonization"? Precisely so you can't escape by moving to another country.
Which, like any other kind of monopoly operation, will only reward inventive cheating. I also doubt if India or China will follow suit, and will damned sure betcha a bunch of other non-aligned nations won't.
Going to the U.N. to get this sort of thing done is just soooooo stupid it's hilarious. They couldn't even back up their agreements on Saddam.
Now, they're actually going to agree on TAX policy?
What, 200-odd nations?
And agree to ENFORCE IT somehow?
BWAAAAAAAAAhahahhahahahhaaaaaaa!!!
The man's a LOON. He's nutty as a fruitcake. Woodrow Wilson had a better chance of getting The League of Nations going. And Still does, for that matter...
.
Now, they're actually going to agree on TAX policy?
What, 200-odd nations?
When it comes to stealing from the US or Europe, it's rather easy to get all 200+ nations to agree on tax policy.
Post a Comment
<< Home