"If I Wanted America to Fail" Video Goes Viral
This video from FreeMarketAmerica.org has gone viral with almost 2 million views on YouTube. The video and one of its creators, Ryan Houck, were featured last night on John Stossel's program:
CARPE DIEM
Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Friday, May 04, 2012
About Me
- Name: Mark J. Perry
- Location: Washington, D.C., United States
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
Previous Posts
- Markets in Everything: Professional Hitchhikers
- Cartoon of the Day
- CME Chairman Defends Speculators
- Tire Tariffs Cost $1B and $900k Per Job in 2011
- Population Distribution by Age, 1950-2050
- Shale Revolution Links
- Cleveland Fed Estimate of 10-Yr. Inflation: 1.47%
- Social Security vs. Private Retirement
- Embracing the Shale Revolution: Let's Export
- Most Popular Baby Names Back to 1880 from SSA
37 Comments:
Saw this on Stossel last night. Fantastic!
Thanks for posting it.
One comment on the regulation in the video. Regulation is already so vague and complicated that neither our attorney nor the regulators and bureaucrats understand them. I'm not exaggerating. We're all just guessing if we're in compliance and the vagueness of regulation allows the regulators to interpret regulation any way they want and they are not compelled to interpret them the same for every firm.
There is no rule of law and the state can use these regulations to persecute anyone it wants. Note Gibson guitars and the recent fines levied against "manipulators" in the oil market.
I think it was linked by a commentator on Carpe Diem a week or so ago. Either that or it was linked from somewhere that was linked here.
The effective thing about this video is it mentions many things that politicians rarely mention or never explain well. And which the media is not going to bring up.
Like environmental laws and other regulations, which are an ignored component in outsourcing discussions. It is not only differential labor costs. Other costs matter like compliance costs, or potential unionization. And sometimes the pain in the a** factor makes the decision.
Also the importance of cheap energy. The whole alternative energy story is based on either Global Warming or some reduction in imported oil BS. Makes no sense to pay more now in order to try to avoid some increase later, when you can just pay less now and switch when the alternatives actually become competitive.
I've never seen anyone explain how solar and wind will displace foreign oil, yet that's been an assumed fact by the media. If people don't buy electric cars when electricity is already cheaper to run a vehicle, why would they do so with more expensive sources?
Anyway, really good to see effective online content like this. Good counter to what is taught in school and portrayed in the media.
Actually, isn't that how communism failed?
There's about half a good video here -- he loses me when he deviates from economic issues and starts to build a straw man about motivations, climate science, and demonizing making decisions based on the knowledge at the time.
If I wanted America to fail, I’d pay people not to work.
I’d pay mothers to have babies out of wedlock.
I’d exempt over half the population from any meaningful income tax so they would vote for tax increases on the productive folks.
I’d promise workers today retirement benefits that simply can’t be paid tomorrow.
I would stress class warfare — both economic and racial.
I’d give job and educational preferences to favored groups rather than allowing merit to be used as a selection criteria.
I’d pay mothers to have babies out of wedlock.
Would you pay mothers to have babies, IN wedlock, like Rick Santorum?
"Would you pay mothers to have babies, IN wedlock, like Rick Santorum?"...
Well is that any dumber of an idea aig then paying mothers to crank out bastard children?
Well is that any dumber of an idea aig then paying mothers to crank out bastard children?
I don't know how that answers my question.
@meep: i'm not sure he's built a straw man at all. he's absolutely correct that today's environmental movement is using the environment to drive the economic system towards socialism.
@AIG: i don't like the idea of paying mothers to have babies period, but there's no question that the less bad idea would be to pay them to have babies IN wedlock. one of the easiest ways to destroy a culture is to incentivize out of wedlock births. this is similar to the choice between plain welfare and the earned income tax credit. i don't like either, but at least the EITC is incentivizing something good (work).
If I wanted America to fail I would keep the country in constant war and the population in constant fear
If I wanted America to fail I would use that fear to syphon off $200 extra billion to build weapons
If I wanted America to fail I woul police the world
i don't like the idea of paying mothers to have babies period, but there's no question that the less bad idea would be to pay them to have babies IN wedlock. one of the easiest ways to destroy a culture is to incentivize out of wedlock births
We weren't given the choice to pick one or the other. We created both choices, and picked both. The question is, why pick on one, but ignore the other?
Second, the claim in the second part of your sentence is often repeated, but not entirely convincing to me. Maybe it's me.
I agree with AIG: maybe wedlock was important a century ago when our ancestors were dirt poor, but a parent can usually raise a kid today on their own. It's not ideal, as one parent only has so much time, but it's not going to "destroy the culture" either. The bigger issue isn't wedlock, but getting rid of unwanted births to begin with. That means more contraception, with abortions as a last resort, wedlock hardly enters into the picture. And human culture all over the world is still far too focused on having people get married and have kids- something most have never been good at to begin with- because there was little contraception until the last century and it used to be good economics for millenia to have more kids, both of which aren't true anymore. That culture needs to change and considering first world birth rates are below replacement, it is changing, but perhaps not fast enough.
As for this video, somewhat well done although a few rough edges show through, but what was most interesting is all the points he hit. I wouldn't be surprised if someone behind that video is a reader of this blog, either that or all those memes must have hit the wider conservative blogs also.
I’m not sure what the purpose of this was film was suggesting? I found it to be confusing and double speak…..the messages in the video seem to suggest the awakening by the people protesting in Wall Street to be against the rights to Freedom and Prosperity of America!!! Bizarre…..and the awakening to the importance of protecting the environment to be foolish!! John Stossel did try to make some sense of it all in his interview with the MD of this ill-informed organisation. Their ignorance of history astonishing and how we have arrived at the mess the world is as a result of what has been going on America. Some of my best friends are American and they have never been as well informed as we are in Europe. On the point of Europe and the crazy allegations against Europe we must recognise that the United Kingdom is not part of Europe preferring to have always been the poodle of America. Margarate Thatcher tried to drag Socialist Europe into the invisible arms of Adam Smith politics to the detriment of Europe. Europe does care about real people, the environment and has always rebelled at de-regulation of monetary controls especially the gambling frenzy of the American stock markets that contributed to this big mess. The dire economic situation in Europe is a direct consequence of American GREED and politics. Why is it that it is a German company that is attempting to give urgently to the world a global currency???? They need to look at their history books….what happened in Germany back in 1931???…..if anything this German company may be the saviour of America if things get really messy. Perhaps FreeMarket America should take a look at ‘What on Earth on they Spraying’ on Youtube and note the number of Senators interviewed who had no idea this was happening in America now spreading to Europe to the alarm of everyone. Let us hope it will make the FreeMarket America organisation sick as it will to many others. Perhaps they made their stupid video in retaliation to the film ‘Thrive’ entitled ‘What on Earth will it Take’ now free on Youtube.
http://tiny.cc/7c2mbw
Would you pay mothers to have babies, IN wedlock, like Rick Santorum?
Absolutely not. You want a child? Then pay to raise it.
"I don't know how that answers my question"...
Well of course not aig, it gives lie to your question...
"If I wanted America to fail I would use that fear to syphon off $200 extra billion to build weapons"...
If I wanted America to fail well then I would go to a clueless Canadian for advice...
I agree with AIG: maybe wedlock was important a century ago when our ancestors were dirt poor, but a parent can usually raise a kid today on their own.
Of course, "wedlock" doesn't even mean that there aren't 2 parents present. It just means that they are married. Lots of people live together, have kids, and aren't married.
It's this whole social-religious conservative narrative that keeps repeating itself over and over, with no evidence and no particularly good reasoning. If only people were married, than things would be dandy!
Of course, lets ignore the lack of education and ignorance that generally associates with single-parenthood, and single-parenthood among those which are more likely to produce unwanted children and rely on government welfare for it. No no...lets push for elimination of contraceptives, home-schooling, and marriage at 17, so you can have as many babies as possible. Because there's nothing like a 14th century life-style, to compete in the 21st century.
Of course, socio-religious-conservatives will provide "evidence" for their claims of wedlock. So do the drug-advocates here. The problem is, anyone can lie with statistics, if you only pick the right format to show the data.
For example, Charles Murray who was speaking a few weeks ago at Uncommon Knowledge, where he compares 2 white neighborhoods: one working class in Philly and 1 affluent in Boston. He proceeds to tell us the difference in marriage rates between the two populations as a possible causality for the difference in economic outcomes in the two areas.
Except that he is not actually telling us anything.
I went and I looked at the marriage status for both of those specific neighborhoods...and there was indeed a difference in the overall % of people married, if we take into account the entire population. But if you look at separate age-groups, you see that there really is NO difference (just very slight) up until middle-age...when widows start to grow a lot faster in the poor neighborhood vs the affluent one. That accounts for the difference in overall % of married people.
Charles Murrey knows this. But the people who will repeat his line over and over and over, don't.
It's a good video.
>>> If I wanted America to fail I would keep the country in constant war and the population in constant fear
If I wanted America to fail I would use that fear to syphon off $200 extra billion to build weapons
If I wanted America to fail I woul police the world
If I wanted to hear an idiot bloviate I would do all these things so s/he can ignore a trillion dollar yearly deficit, a massive immigration problem, a social security ponzi scheme doomed to fail, and a host of other libtard idiocies that his idiotic whines pale in comparison to.
...But that's just me.
Some of your bias's due to political affiliation is ignorant. There is alot of truth to this video, but it's not perfect. Many of the environmental and economic perspectives are on point..and this is coming from an independent perspective.
"Of course, lets ignore the lack of education and ignorance that generally associates with single-parenthood, and single-parenthood among those which are more likely to produce unwanted children and rely on government welfare for it. No no...lets push for elimination of contraceptives, home-schooling, and marriage at 17, so you can have as many babies as possible. Because there's nothing like a 14th century life-style, to compete in the 21st century"...
What blindingly silly drivel...
I would have stopped with this:
"I don't like the idea of paying mothers to have babies period."
What possible interest could anyone have in using government to encourage or discourage people's personal choices to have children? Talk about overreach!
I have often read the following, which is attributed to George Will:
""rules for avoiding poverty: Graduate from high school, don't have a baby until you are married, don't marry while you are a teenager. Among people who obey those rules, poverty is minimal."
The notion of growing up, preparing yourself for life as an independent adult, and committing to the idea of having a family before having children would seem to be a good one.
Marriage being one way, although not the only way, of indicating commitment.
You may find the following two Milton Friedman videos of interest:
On Economic Risk vs. Human Lives
On The Robber Baron Myth
>>> There is a lot of truth to this video, but it's not perfect. Many of the environmental and economic perspectives are on point...and this is coming from an independent perspective.
Tell you what.
a) Identify which ones you consider to be "on point".
and then
b) we'll discuss how "independent" you are.
Hey, perhaps we'll all agree. But I'd like to know exactly which things you believe are "on point" for the purposes of saying that any aspect of this video is wrongly suggested.
The creators of this video don't argue that NO environmental regulation has a value or purpose. Only that the vast majority of it has no associated price tag for comparison to the value it produces to human and environmental health and wellbeing. And that's flat out wrong.
>>> The problem is, anyone can lie with statistics, if you only pick the right format to show the data.
This sort of moral relativistic comment is a classical hoary lie-by-repetition of the Left.
Yes, one can always lie with statistics, but you have to be in control of access to the data in order to keep the lie hidden in order for it to be at all effective. Because if your lie gets any traction, then people will start looking at the basis for your claims, and do the needed homework to expose your lie for the lie it is. There's only one way you can lie like a mo-fo and get away with it, and that's if you keep your stats and data and means of producing those stats hidden away.
If your data is open and exposed for all to see, then someone will call you on your lie, and describe how and why it's a lie.
If you do as the AGW types do, and make sure no one knows how you created your stats, then, yeah, you can lie like a mo-fo and get away with it.
So claiming, as you DEFACTO do, that "all statistics are worthless" is a lie.
Only ones spouted by fact-hiding charlatan QUACKS like Michael Mann, the Hadley group, or Michael Moore or Al Gore -- to use ones on the Left -- are worthless.
So:
ANNNNKKKKK. You lose, insert coin.
BTW, not actually bothering to LINK to data which supports your claims, so we can independently tell if YOU are the one lying or not, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Hey, I just went and looked at the exact same statistics, and they indicated that YOU, and not Mr. Murray, are lying through your teeth!!
Now: Which of us is lying? Both? Neither? Did one or both make an error in our interpretation of the statistics?
The reader can't tell... because neither of us actually cite our sources.
If you're not a quack (and in my case, it's honest -- open and intentional on my part) then you cite sources used for analysis.
Ron H...100% with you. But if you'll note, most of the same social-conservatives that condemn government subsidizing of single parents, are the same ones who either passively, or actively (like in Santorum's case) support government's subsidizing of having babies in wedlock. Which is why I asked the question, WHY do they just criticize unwed mothers?
-----------
Juandos, I don't know how your link addresses my point.
------------
Obloodyhell...you went a bit too far on the deep end there buddy. Come back to the shallow end. No need to go off on tangents about AGW, Michael Mann etc etc. Demographic data that is easily and instantly available to anyone, isn't comparable to academic research.
Now, I got my data at city-data. You can enter the zip codes of the neighborhoods Charles Murray talks about, and if you scroll down, they have a breakdown of marriage status by age of the population.
What is important here, is the number of "never married" status in the population. That % is almost identical in both zip codes. Everything else stays very similar between the two populations up until about 35.
We see widows going up considerably faster in Fishtown, and yes Fishtown has more "divorced" % after 35...but that means that they were, in fact, married, but that marriages just last longer in Belmont than they do in Fishtown. It doesn't tell us...WHY. If we see the divergence happening at around 35, it may be indicative of people in Belmont getting married much LATER in life, due to the larger number of years they spend in universities getting a higher education, and commitment to work. conversely, it indicates that people in Fishtown get married much younger in life, and by the time they are 35, those marriages are falling apart.
But of course, that information is much more relevant to the issue of poverty, or unwanted children or single-parent families...than marriage rates.
These are 2 zip codes with almost identical populations, but in one the modal age is...5 years old...and in the other the modal age is...43.
So if Charles Murray really wanted to give an adequate comparison of the two (and he may have done so in the book...but he didn't do so in the interview for Uncommon Knowledge)...he would say that the difference between the two worlds is that in the economically successful one, people stay in school longer, commit to education and career more, get married much alter in life, and have far fewer kids.
All the things that social-conservatives hate and push against.
Instead, he tells us that the overall % of marriage in 1 is greater than the other. But that tells us, nothing.
Ps: Plus Charles Murray knows he is not really comparing similar "white" populations. 23% of the population of Belmont Ma is foreign born, compared to 10% for Fishtown. Hmm...Looks like it's not the picture perfect white American community going back to 1960, that Murray is implying here.
Now: Which of us is lying? Both? Neither? Did one or both make an error in our interpretation of the statistics?
I don't assume anyone is lying. I assume that everyone has an agenda.
The reader can't tell... because neither of us actually cite our sources.
Sure we do. I just did. The reader, typically takes it for granted whenever they hear someone say something.
So claiming, as you DEFACTO do, that "all statistics are worthless" is a lie.
I never claimed that. I said anyone can portray any conclusion they want, by just giving data in a particular format, or simply omitting.
Charles Murray tells us of the % of households with single-parent family, for example. That's 1 set of demographic data that leads to one conclusion. Another may be the average size of said household. That, may lead to another very different conclusion (as it does in this case, where the households in Fishtown are considerably larger).
Point is, if one wants to make a case, one can make a case with demographic data for anything.
But there is always some...common sense...that says that the reason why Belmont MA is an affluent place, is education, small families, and why not...a heck of a lot more Asians ;)
This comment has been removed by the author.
If I wanted America to fail I would Elect a Muslim as President so he can systematically destroy this country and have Czars that answer only to him , and sign secret deals behind closed doors with countries that hate us and shrink our military so we can't defend our self try and get all guns band and force a healthcare bill down the American peoples throats and sue States that don't agree with him ,put radical liberals in high places in the government wait a minute it's already happening
"Juandos, I don't know how your link addresses my point"...
Oh it more than addresses your point unless your point wasn't actually in your comment aig...
"But if you'll note, most of the same social-conservatives that condemn government subsidizing of single parents, are the same ones who either passively, or actively (like in Santorum's case) support government's subsidizing of having babies in wedlock"...
Ahhh, visiting the Daily Kos now aig?
Since when does Santorum set government policy?
How do you know what social conservatives will do?
If I wanted America to fail I would reelect that worth SOB already in THe White House.
Or Romney. What the US needs is a forth Bush term.
If I wanted America to fail I'd drive wedges between Americans dividing them along ideological lines rather than focusing on important things. While they're arguing about trivialities I'd drive the dollar into the dollar, quadrupling the cost of gasoline at the pump from what it would be if the dollar was still at 2002 levels.
The same dollar devaluation resulted in a 55% windfall profit for U.S. multinationals valuing their profits in dollars.
"Drill, baby Drill." Gas is expensive because the dollar was debased, not because of environmental issues. Our biggest export in 2011 was, guess what, crude oil and refined oil products. How's that get you Ms Palin?
I'd have Americans wound up over "climate change" even when there isn't a thing anyone can do about it.
Or "out of wedlock" babies, the number of which as a percentage hasn't changed much in 100 years - except to have actually gone down.
I'd blame those out of work for drawing unemployment. They're out of work, their house is being foreclosed and there are no jobs they're qualified for. Kick 'em while they're down.
I'd start a war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 because their leader is "doing terrible things to his people." Brilliant.
I'd amend free speech to read "You can say anything you want as long as you're willing to pay the price for having said it."
I'd call leaders traitors when I disagree with their policies. And the ignorant don't have an answer, but they cheer anyway. Really brilliant.
I'd call TARP money a "bailout" rather than the loan it was, then neglect to point out that it's being paid back with interest on time, and profitably.
I'd split the country across lines that make "the other side" enemies of freedom and democracy for disagreeing. Isn't the definition of both freedom and democracy the right to disagree?
I'd neglect to point out that 1% of the population controls 90% of the money and then brand anyone who wants a bigger slice of the pie "a socialist."
I'd reduce taxes by 1/2 Trillion dollars per year, build up massive deficits, then claim that lowering taxes even more is "the only way to stimulate the economy into growing stronger." Then I'd complain about deficits.
I'd convince people that "trickle-down economics" isn't "voodoo economics" and it's nothing like the old Irish joke about "I'd be happy to pour a quart of good Irish whiskey on your grave if you don't mind that it passes through me body on its way."
I'd convince people that regulations are bad. neglecting to mention that most regulations are the result of someone gaming or cheating the system.
How do you know what social conservatives will do?
I...listen to what they're saying?
"How do you know what social conservatives will do?"
I...listen to what they're saying?
It might be better to pay attention to actions rather than words.
Post a Comment
<< Home