You have to support some industries untill they can stand on their own, that's exactly what is happening right now with wind and solar, ie. solar panels has dropped 2/3 in price the last 3-4 years, if it wasn't supported it wouldn't have gotten this far so quick.
His theory may be correct if we had a level playing field. Right now there is so much money spent lobbying against green energy that entrepreneurs have their hands tied trying to get a business up and running. What happened top the electric car?
@papercrete01 The field is level. The result is not, and it is because green energy is not as good as traditional energy. Just like a better playing team wins at the end of games that start with zero scores. Instead of acknowledging the worth of one team over another, you root for one side by debilitating the other and instead of fairness you want to create a situation in which your team wins instead of the other.
The glass fallacy makes sense but he misses that its not necessarily creating a job, but creating DEMAND.
He uses his own argument against himself.
If I build a 500 MW solar panel sys in AZ. Thats gonna cost a pretty penny. But if the power only went to a small city the money saved and eventually "free" energy gained in the future IS LITERALLY creating wealth. It frees up hundreds of dollars during the summer for each home creating more demand & jobs in the econ
@fububalla True. The problem is identifying which projects will pay off in the long run. The reason government doing this is a problem (for me at least) is that you cannot opt-out of the government's plan. With private ventures, you are free to get on board or not, depending on your OWN judgement.
@ManInAHighCastle In most cases you only have One to Three choice of where you get your energy to power your home. For instance I can only get my electricity from Swepco and my gas from Centerpoint in my area. These are both private but they have a regulated monopoly as public utilities. I can opt out of Swepco, but I wouldn't have a cold refrigerador UNLESS I had my own independent power.
I think by 'government plan' you mean using taxpaper money to fund a nascent industry right?
@fububalla You miss the important part. If a business invests in something foolish they go out of business. If the government makes a foolish investment everyone suffers not just the fools who made the investment. The reason government investments are so often disasterous is because the things they invest in are usually things the private sector avoids because they are a waste of money
@Jimboman300 Are you equating green jobs/alternative energy jobs as foolish investments (the broken glass in stossel's dickish analysis?)
I guess if you google Google's headquarters you will see all those bad investments they made that are providing a SUSTAINABLE electricity source for that facility
The reason govt makes bad investments is lobbying/interests groups that overpower the will of the people which happens to be right on many policies fronts (not all of course.)
@Jimboman300 Another thing is business, unless specialize, will seek the path of least resistance to profits. This is an extremely short term view which has jeopardized the world economy already.
Government's are designed to take a more comprehensive/long term view concerning national investments.
@fububalla you have a serous misunderstanding of how companies make decisions. Companies don't make decisions on the path least resistance, they make decisions based on the most economically efficient.
@ramrants my full quote was "business, unless specialized, will seek the path of least resistance to profits." we are talkign about the same thing buddy.
And maybe I should add that this path is often to short term profits and often neglects its effect on other industries. Some companies of course do take a longer term approach but most do not in regards to profit. That's why you have quaterly swings in the market.
@Jimboman300 Yes indeed. Like Solyndra, Amonix, Beacon Power, Evergreen, SpectraWatt, AES Eastern, Enerl, etc... The list will continue on and on costing billions on top of billions of wasted taxpayer dollars & end up with jack squat. Our friends to the north Canada's PM Harper has been proven smarter for not jumping on that green bandwagon. Germany is poised to end it, the UK is beginning to rise against it, as are other European countries. Green pushed by government is a fiasco.
@fububalla If 'YOU' build it and it turns out that it works & is profitable the free market will indeed see this and act accordingly. Problem is the government is wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and the free market has seen exactly how profitable it is. Even the rest of the world is backing away from wind & solar, but not the US. Nope. Why? Because the electorate is allowing itself to be plundered by the politicians in office on a lark.
@SippinonMickeys how many false statements can you put in one blurb.
1) the govt is wasting billions but no on green/alternative energy. Just in the energy sector alone over 40 Billion a year in OLD ASS oil and gas subsidies. How much in green energy. 6 billion a year max - do the research.
2) Where the F is your proof that "the world" is backing away from wind and solar?? Give me stats
3) talk about plundering. Oil is $100 a barrel, 40 billion in subs
Free market economists and fiscal conservitives ideology complete discounts environmentalism. Wealth should be measured in clean air, clean water, healthy food supplies and safe shelter. The fact that their ideology is challenged so strongly by the notion that it will take goernment to pursue this inititive allows them to minimize the impact of profiteering on the world ecosystem and the overall human condition. Sad!
@skeptictom818 A green economy at its zenith will creat surpluses in food and sustainable energy. With those two things there will be little need for jobs. It seems impossible but the biggest barrier it that no one really wants to try it because it would take hard work, sacrifice and battling the interests of the oil barons who have a death grip on humanity.
@JustMeOrMaybeNot Since the rise of automation we have all kind of unnecesary jobs that have been created just to keep people working and to exploit the world economy. The entire finacial sector are parasites that move numbers around of imaginary money that we are aloud to play with because the rest of the world has been to afraid to do anything about it up to this point. As long as we play along we needs jobs. If we cut out the middle men we can start working for ourselves.
How green is wind when it kills thousands and thousands of birds a year? Farmers are upset now because they are killing batts. Now they might have to use more pesticide.
It's not a fallacy in "green jobs". It's a fallacy in democracy actually functioning well- where our representatives actually fight for the common good. Green Jobs does make sense, but nobody is fighting for it: thus, no incentive.
I love the rebate and tax credit programs. Have you ever seen so many people not bothered one bit by standing in a home energy welfare line! Take take take you idiots, never think about where that money comes from! You want to boost our economy? Get the fcking govt. out of it's way!
Stossel's view of green jobs assumes that the production of non-green fuels is not a negative externality. This is a false assumption as demonstrated perfectly by the gulf oil spill (only the 4th largest oil spill that has occurred so far). Taxation should be concomitant to pollution and environmental destruction, as basic economics demonstrates.
@Thatmakessense356 Yeah, but when it becomes profitable, either because fossil fuels become to expensive OR people think that "green" products/companies are the way to go then it will be done. Until then there is no reason to do anything but invest in research and try to drive costs down below fossil fuels.
@Thatmakessense356 To the contrary, the assumption that the market does not adequately address extrenalities is the one entirely without empirical evidence. That regulations forced BP to drill at a depth that made accidents more likely and other regulations created a liability cap that preserved them from bearing the full cost of any problem is not a failure of the market but of regulation ... as basic economics indicates.
@Thatmakessense356 Gee, thanks. Since, of course, I never at any time argued that taxes and regulation are the same thing, I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to point that out. Even had I argued that both have decidedly negative economic consequences (which is true), it has no bearing on the fact that the "taxes need to be assessed to address negative externalities not addressed by the market" argument is completely without basis and economically unsound.
@FletchforFreedom You did argue that they are the same by using an example of government screwing up using regulation. That was completely unrelated to the idea that taxation should be the market-correcting device. You also provided no evidence to support the idea that there are automatic market-righting economic influences. What evidence do you have that the market addresses all externalities properly? How are all costs internalized, or corrected?
@Thatmakessense356 Gotta work on those reasoning skills! I never argued taxes and regulation are the same thing; the BP point was (obviously) a response to the absurd premise that the BP spill was an example of economic externalities rather than massive regulatory failure. There IS no evidence that the market cannot address externalities (and centuries of history of the application of private property rights to accomplish precisely that via tort adjusidcation).
@Thatmakessense356 Gotta work on those reasoning skills! I never argued taxes and regulation are the same thing; the BP point was (obviously) a response to the absurd premise that the BP spill was an example of economic externalities rather than massive regulatory failure. There IS no evidence that the market cannot address externalities (and centuries of history of the application of private property rights to accomplish precisely that via tort adjusidcation).
I think that this also has something to do with the nature of the consumer. Speculation is all over the place on this, but eventually, we will run out of oil, and there better be a replacement. The profits promised by alternatives to oil may not come fast enough to save us from economic collapse. Thus, the consumer should really be creating artificial incentives to develop sustainable sources of energy, such as grants, and prizes.
This video is racist. I have reported it to youtube and asked them to ban it. If you care about your country and the world, you will do the same. Thank you.
@obamaforprez2008 - please explain how this video "racist". That term is too easily bantered about by Obama supports with no real basis in reality. Just because someone disagrees with a black person doesn't make them a racists nor negate their disagreement. One CAN be white and disagree with a black person purely on philosophical, religious, political, ideological, economic, social grounds. Their race or color of their skin doesn't have to enter into it.
ONE SMALL Fact was left out. Full cost accounting. Tax pollution, health costs and other costs, and stop SUBSIDIZING Oil Coal, Ethanol, Methanol, Everything elese INCLUDING Green Products and Tecnologies, etc. AND just let CONSUMERS and COMMUNITIES "VOTE with their WALLETS", and take the POLITICIANS out of the Equation all together. PERIOD.
I agree with everything he said. The only problem is that there is no political party which believes in this. The Republicans spend just as much as Democrats do.
Yess!!! Listen to this guy! Let European and Chinese companies outrun US in green technology. Maybe 20 century SUVs will become popular again when they find oil on the moon.
@mecher3k by what standard? They have higher prices and lower average incomes. Huge debt to GDP ratios as well. And even if they didn't, how does that prove "green technology" is a good idea? It has nothing to do with the standard of living.
@mecher3k - they also have the smallest populations. Combine the populations of all the Western European countries and compare to the 350million of the US.
@mecher3k - Well goodie for you. Have a cookie and stay up late tonight. The point is you make a blanket statement that Western Europe has a high standard of living. You negate to also mention those countries also run up huge debt with their large social programs, have lower overall incomes and a higher cost of living. How does that relate to green technology? You statement is non-sequitor.
"The point is you make a blanket statement that Western Europe has a high standard of living."
Their overall population is more happy, their education systems are vastly superior, but then again they don't look down on people with intelligence. I could keep on saying how they are kicking the USA's ass if you want.
"You negate to also mention those countries also run up huge debt with their large social programs"
Few have, the rest are in debt thanks to the USA fucking up.
@mecher3k - The US has no fault in the economic troubles or failures of countries like Greece, Italy, Ireland and England. That's due to a very large entitlement society full of give-away social programs with not enough people working to pay for it.
When country has a population smaller than that of New York City, has no military budget, a small infrastructure to maintain it is easy to have a good standard of living. Try that with 350 million people.
I didn't specify any country. Fail, but common with your type.
". That's due to a very large entitlement society full of give-away social programs with not enough people working to pay for it."
Not with Greece or most of the countries you listed. Helps to actually not watch Fox News and do research. I know it's a hard concept for you to understand.
The USA has a bloated military budget that is caused by, get this, contractors aka private businesses.
@mecher3k - when you say "the rest are in debt thanks to the USA" its just a pure lie. They dug their own holes. Um, what part of Greece, Italy, Ireland and England's debt problems is NOT attributive to wide spread social programs?
FYI - I don't watch Fox News - not one minute. I read the newspapers of these countries, Reuters and AP online.
The USA military budget is what it is because we cover the asses of most of Europe.
@mecher3k I always enjoy when someone criticizes the research skills of others (or makes a nonsensical attack on Fox News0 and then proceed to get thier "facts" entirely wrong. The European countries have, by far, significant welfare state expenditures that are bankrupting them and the transfer payments in the US FAR outweigh military spending. While it is true that the military budget is bloated, that i entirely due to government's inability to manage money, not private businesses.
If it was a good idea to MAKE MORE MONEY, they would jump on it. Why stop making money on oil early? They'll milk it as long as they can, and then switch to other things.
How many unemployed people have the skills required to take these green jobs? Why wouldn't big oil invest in these jobs if they would be so lucrative; they have the money and the means to get into such a lucrative business so why wouldn't they? Because they know, it wouldn't work
@sc0pl355 U do know your answer doesn't answer anything right? obviously if they saw it as a viable business, they would have jumped on it in an instant. U have people like Obama & his ignorant administration touting what they consider great ideas, yet they have no concept of real life bus. & why an industry wouldn't jump on board something THEY (dems) SEE as profitable & GREEN. Dems are made up primarily of people w/good sounding ideas that never survive reality, & they never learn their lesson
@sc0pl355 There is no question, we need to drill our own oil now; over time such energy endeavors can be transitioned to gradually and if the ideas turn out to be good ideas..
If all the passengers in the train are having a big party, and is going straight to a broken bridge, is your conclusion that; the officer in charge of the train cannot look for the brakes just not to spoil the party? Destroying the environment is immoral. Slavery is always more efficient than freedom, you have workers for free until they die; the same way we see slavery immoral today, we will see environmental depredation, water pollution, immoral to Earth to God in a the near future.
I believe you are also wrong in your statement that Mr. Stossel would have us remain dependent on foreign oil. The US is awash in oil. There are literally 1000 acres in Alaska where the stuff seeps through the ground. I think Mr. Stossel would have the US produce ALL its own oil and energy. And what is wrong with jobs going overseas? Thats how we get to enjoy the products we have here, because they make them cheaper. Cannot do that here, because americans have a "right" to minimum wage.
As for jobs created, that time period created the middle class. People talk about the shrinking middle class. Isn't interesting that the more regulation and government control we have in all aspects of our lives, the smaller the middle class gets. Since 2000 there have been over 1 million pages of new regulations created. How is that a free market 4edutainment?
@4edutainment You are saying that because Republicans were in power for 8 years, then the free market was at work. This is not the case. Also it seems that you think the free market was a creation of the new millenium. This is wrong as well. Freer markets have always had positive effects on all aspects of the lives of those who enjoy them. Look at the 19th century, here in the USA. in little more than 100 years this country became the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen.
I love John Stossel bringing back basic ecomonic lessons that most Americans have forgotten. He reminds me of old economics professors that teach brilliant, yet basic econ. in college courses.
I sorta agree with stossel here. Green jobs are needed and are the future, and they are good. But it needs to be free to the open market. Government can't take care of it.
This greens jobs myth is the biggest scam going on in our country today. Stossel couldn't be any more dead on with his analysis of how inefficient it is to use government as a job creator. Wind and Solar have always been the fuels of the future and always will be. Americans will finally get the message once all the money runs out.
Stossel is nothing but a nitpicker and complainer. He fails to see that we desperately need new forms of energy to get away from shipping our money to Oil Dictators overseas. And he totally ignores the CLIMATE PROBLEMS. Give me a break with all of the "free market" rap. This idea of the "free market solving problems" sounds good -- but it does not always work. WHERE ARE ALL THE JOBS??? The free market is shipping millions of jobs overseas.
@4edutainment Climate Problems ? Oh ya i forgot about Climate gate. Tax the CO2 we exhale to fix the broken windows.Tax the trees which consume the deadly CO2 and makes oxygen. Obama will soon tax Aspirin..........Because it works. If there was money to be made in Green Jobs don't you think G/E would have been all over it? I agree with you when you say all our jobs are being sent overseas. NAFTA GAT Cheaper labor = more profit. With less regulations and corporate tax.
@Kikkins -- WHERE ARE ALL THE JOBS...via the free market? Republicans were in power 8 years and millions of jobs were lost. As for the mess about "Climate tax" -- I did not mention that. Many GREEN JOBS are already being created and will in the future -- electric cars, solar powered technology, etc. Stossel is out of touch and behind the times....and "free market" did nothing so far but create 10% UNEMPLOYMENT. When does that get better? Not with Stossels stale ideas.
@karozans The environment is getting better? The environment has been getting worse--in the sense of loss of species, unnatural alterations to climate, and so forth--at least since the Industrial Revolution.
I don't mind using fossil fuels. There are plenty of things you can do with it that don't involve burning it and releasing greenhouse gases and other gunk into the atmosphere.
@CaiusRising Actually you are completely wrong. The air quality and water quality has gotten better by several orders of magnitude since the 1900's. If you don't believe me watch John Stossel's videos on the environment and global warming. There is no real science that says man is causing GW and the EPA says air and water is cleaner. You have no evidence to show that the Earth is getting worse. You are simply repeating what some silly college professor is saying.
oil is highly subsidized, thru taxes and our military war machine. And its been subsidized for decades.
Roads are an example of how new jobs are created from government outreach. Without roads, how would modern commerce happen? Would modern commerce be as large as it is if there was no roads? Thus, while you might not be able to point to individual jobs that roads created, its undeniable that roads has increased commerce by lightyears.
This video is a bit short sighted. Does the broken window fallacy apply. What if instead of hiring a glazer to repair the window a enterprising window owner invented a new non-breakable window. Then created a company to produce these windows. Some glazers would lose out because of less future repair jobs. But society has gained from a new unbreakable window that may have more henceforth unknown applications. New ventures require brave investors. If there are no investors should gov't step in?
The thing that Stossel doesn't like is context. Columbus came to the America's because the Spanish government put up taxpayers money, at the time that was a very high risk venture. Any ways, becoming less dependent on foreign oil is good from a military point of view too & saves money in the long run.
What sucks is that consumers care more about price than about sustainability in purchasing a product. If there was greater demand for sustainably produced products and low emission energy sources, then the marketplace would fulfill this demand. Problem is that everyone blames the corporations without taking personal responsibility.
Makes sense to a certain point. Problem is companies have cornered the market on research and seriously limit the creative nature of science. Obviously someone has to pay for the research, and they're the most capable of doing so. But seriously, there needs to be SOME money in public research without corporations pulling scientists strings.
@studentofsmith Yes. Government bureaucracy is inefficient and less stringent in terms of producing results. This gives scientists the ability to take risks in producing research that companies would deem otherwise unprofitable. But its this type of research that indirectly contributes to major scientific improvements. I'm not saying tax payers should foot a large bill, just a nominal one.
@beats299 Millions of dollars have been raised by private charities for medical and other research that it would not be profitable for businesses to invest in. The more government funding, however, the less private funding since a) people will have less money and b) the belief that "the government's funding it" will relive people of any sense of responsibility to donate. Yes, public funding does increase the overall dollar amount but centralizing the source reduces creativity.
Wow, I think you would be hard pressed to find a bigger asshole 'reporter' than John Stossel... In the words of George Carlin, "Just the worst kind of lying criminal cocksucker you could ever come across....
Why in the world do people think that the government will be so much better than private enterprise? The post office....Fedex and UPS have shown they know hot to do it better. The DMV is a mess...NASA just recently got its funding severely cut. The government is not interested in making money, it gets free money from the taxpayer. When you are not interested in making money, you CANNOT sustain some big program because you don't generate anything. Ultimately you have to take more free money.
I agree and somewhat disagree with this philosophy:
When it comes to green energy products, many ideas are so massive, expensive, and require several years worth of R&D before they can even contemplate hitting the free market. Think NASA in the 60's, no private entrepreneur would dare risk such a concept. Even the wealthiest of individuals won't risk the initial capital it takes on green energy. If the gov projects work, the free market would then pick up the bulk.
BTW, The window example isn't the best metaphor to use in this situation, but it would be appropriate towards descriping the USA military-industrial complex. More accurate is the government is building a fancy window that may or may not sell/work, if it doesn't work, too bad, if it does, other private companies will build these windows.
@MegaAvalonn The point you're missing is still the fact that govn't distorts the free market economy which ultimately leads to higher prices and more unemployment. If the money that govn't spends on some product or project is instead put into the people's hands, then that money is spent more wisely than any govn't bureaucrat can. Also, who says the free market would pick up the bulk. You're making many, many assumptions there. I could come up with tons of questions on that one!
@MegaAvalonn "Even the wealthiest of individuals won't risk the initial capital it takes on green energy."
So why should the taxpayer? It's just like nuclear power. No private company will insure a nuclear reactor since they don't want a potential billion dollar liability on their books; but governments rush in where people who would have to risk their own money fear to tread. If private individuals won't do it because it's "too risky" maybe we should take the hint.
I have a bit of a problem with this one. It took government to do several things like get seat-belts in cars, and government needs to regulate the market and make sure nobody's cheating, and they need to regulate all sorts of things like meat processing. This idea that green jobs isn't a good idea is a bit of a non-sequitor b/c we need new forms of clean energy. We can't keep depending on coal and oil and we can't rely on the market b/c coal and oil already have a bit of a monopoly.
These people only give a shit about money, it's disgusting. What about the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the food you eat? American greed will only last so long, until it's too late to start being human being again.
Government can create value to the economy if its programs were a useful investment, such as government development of roads allows for increased infrastructure for the economy for years to come.
So you are saying that goverment redirecting money from the economy to it's desired location as an investment is good if the potential target is good in that perspective, for example those roads that you are talking about?
@ainefairygoddess Agreed but they cant be hampered by earmarks and new legislation. This new infrastructure stimulus should have been the first Obama stimulus imo. But Stossel is as always right on.
I think green energy is a grate idea. I am a huge fan of ethanol. I am not a fan of subsidies, but i think oil has been helped out by government allot throughout history. personally i think if the E85 and blender pumps were everywhere and Ethanol and gas were made to compete, ethanol can compete without subsidies. but we should stop trying to control the worlds oil supply so much. and you are right if the money isn't invested in green jobs it would be invested somewhere else. Over seas.
In Nevada, the attack ads on Sharon Angle quote her saying "it's not my job to bring industry to this state".
Of course they cut out the part where she says that its her job to create legislation that will motivate companies to move over here. I don't know why people who vote for Democrats always want the government to wipe their ass for them.
@hint0122 People would do green job if there was money in it UNLESS an outside force makes it too risky - i.e., the government imposing new taxes that would make it less profitable to invest. Either way, it's the government's fault.
@hint0122 - Yes, Bill Gates started out of his garage but nobody really touched his ideas as an investment until he had a proven company worthy of it.
Careful investors spend their days looking for interests with little risk and a big payout. If green technology had an immediate future they'd be on it in a heartbeat. They are not.
Perhaps someday, but in reality the technology hasn't advanced much since the 1970's.
@hint0122 I agree that there's no money in green jobs right now, but subsidies to oil companies right now makes it more profitable to have non-green jobs.
@DimeLivesInUs Actually, while subsidies to oil companies are ill-advised, they are relatively tiny, particularly in comparison to additional taxes imposed on the industry and are not even remotely responsible for making fossil fuel use more profitable than the FAR-from profitable "green jobs" being subsidized (at a massively greater percentage).
You are repeating a canard - and a silly one at that.
I hate guys like this. They just complain and never point to any solutions. Yet it's their pathetic industry that leaves us with such a shallow and partisan view or reality in the first place. What a cretin.
@ananiasacts - The solution is the free market. Capitalism drives everyone to succeed by incentivizing hard work. Capitalism reduces costs for better goods, thus increasing the standard of living for everybody. Capitalism puts no restrictions on the poor or the rich, but leaves them free to succeed, or learn from their mistakes and find a better area to apply themselves.
Government interferes with this process costing all of society and encouraging businesses to cozy up with politicians.
@netster007z, I agree completely. I wish someone would give capitalism a try. Gosh, I think the natural role of government is to evaporate completely by embedding anything it presently does into the fabric of the economy itself. I don't see an intrinsic need for any government of any sort. So I couldn't agree more that it's the source of our problems and have designed a way to get much better leadership based on making our political capital more tangible.
We need government to protect us from thieves, cheats, and foreign enemies, but once it tries to provide for us, it does FAR more harm than good. In the words of a fellow 'antigovernment radical', "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as government grows, liberty decreases."
And for the record, that 'antigovernment radical' is named Thomas Jefferson.
@netster007z, I don't believe in foreigners. We are the same species. We inhabit the same indivisible biosphere. These boundaries you see are only measures of the dysfunction of our culture; the error in our perspective. We have thieves because we've created an economy that rewards theft more than it does hard work. (Steal a dollar and it's all yours, earn one honestly and you must give part of it to the government.) And we have fraud mostly because we teach our children to worship fraud.
@ananiasacts - When I refer to foreign enemies, I mean the legitimate power of government to protect us from aggression by other aka foreign governments, as enumerated in the constitution. As far as whether to use the word foreign, that seems like more of a word preference.
I agree that big government encourages theft and discourages hard work. Why should a business work hard and innovate if they can just buy dinners for a politician and get taxpayer funds through the stimulus pack instead?
@netster007z, I understood that. It is the right word. I'm just denying the legitimacy of all governments because they have become obsolete and dysfunctional. It makes no sense to delegate our sovereignty in such primitive ways. The aggression is between governments over a sovereignty that none of them have a fair title to in the first place. This seems to confirm my point. We should be looking for ways to build a meta-government in cyberspace. Where we can spend our political capital directly.
@netster007z - Yes govts role is mainly to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity".
windmills and solar panels are ineffective. That's why no one is investing in them.
This is the 21st century. Energy needs are very high. Everyone has a TV, computer, Air Conditioner/heater. If you're going to offer an alternative, at least offer a viable alternative.
Putting money into green research, like Cold Fusion, for which new money had been granted. One month later the expert scientist, former nay-sayer convert, was violently murdered in his home.
Naturally, not a single media outlet covered the latest Cold Fusion set back and the ruthlessness of the fuel markets.
He's ignoring the ethical component of the pollution that fossil fuels cause. Isn't there good in reducing our dependence on fuel source that destroys large portions of the surface of the planet we are trying to live on!?
Economics is a science (sort of) and as such does not address ethical issues. It does, however, address externalities such as pollution. The reason fossil fuels are so cheap is because the consumer does not pay for the environmental damage they cause, the cost is externalized. If consumers had to pay for the damage it causes the costs would be internalized and the price of fossil fuels would reflect their true cost, giving "green" technology a boost in the free market.
@studentofsmith It's interesting that you think economics isn't relevant to ethics. Ever read any Ayn Rand? Or better yet, the foundation of socialism/communism, is altruism.
@InFromTheVoid Economics is a tool, like medicine. Medicine can be used to cure. It can also be used to kill. That we should use it cure is the moral argument.
Economics can be used to demonstrate that free markets support life. That we should support life is the moral argument.
---
"I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
@studentofsmith: "I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
How long do you think you would continue to live without all of the other life, both human and non-human, that's around you? On the other hand there isn't an individual of any species on earth that we'd even notice was missing if not a part of our lives. It simply couldn't be more clear: the very purpose of life is merely to empower other life.
@ananiasacts I choose to live in a symbiotic (mutually voluntary and beneficial) relationship with my fellow human beings rather than a parasitic one. I do not seek to benefit at the expense of my fellows nor do I willingly permit others to benefit at my expense. This is the core of morality.
@studentofsmith, That's a very nobel desire, but isn't really possible considering that simply in order to survive you're forced to have impact on other people. The mere fact that we must share a single biosphere means that as our wealth increases the amount of impact we have on other people necessarily increases as well. Thus, in order to achieve neutrality we must compensate for that externality by effectively trading "rights that represent that impact" in an open market of some sort.
@ananiasacts Air is a natural resource. At birth you begin using this natural resource to breath. Doing so establishes a right of prior usage. As such no one may utilize the air in a manner which materially interferes with your prior usage.
Vehicle emissions reduce the utility of the air for breathing so motorists benefit at the expense of those who do not drive. Given the high taxes on gasoline, however, one could make the argument motorists are already compensating non-drivers.
@studentofsmith, I don't see how a gas tax could possibly compensate for that impact unless it actually redressed it--generating income for those who dumped less into the air at the expense of those who dump more. Any mechanism that simply yielded the same benefit for everyone, as the current mechanism does, actually only exacerbates the problem because it makes the loss that much harder to recognize. It is taking someone's wealth away to spend it on something that we believe will benefit them.
@ananiasacts It does generate income for those who dump less into the air... by virtue of a reduced tax burden. The benefits of government spending are widespread (or at least they should be) while the costs are concentrated on drivers. An imperfect solution but a pragmatic application of moral principal given the ambiguity of property rights in this case.
@studentofsmith, I don't see how someone who never drives, but must endure all of the pollution, noise, dust, and hazards those who do is "benefiting" from the fact that they're paying no gas taxes. Your solution effectively does exactly what you claimed to be against: forcing someone to live for the sake of others. The only way to actually redress a taking is with a giving. Some form of wealth must flow from the person enjoying the benefit the taking permits, to the person harmed by it.
@ananiasacts Government expenditures (ideally) benefit everyone more or less equally. Therefore everyone should, in fairness, contribute more or less the same amount to the public purse. If a particular group of persons, drivers in this case, are contributing more then logically everyone else contributes less. In the absence of a fuel tax non-drivers would experience an overall increase in their tax burden or a reduction in government services. My argument is that this, effectively, is a giving.
This video ignores the fact that fossil fuels far outpace those provided for renewables.
He makes a great point that the market should determine if renewables are worth their cost; however, it fails to mention that they're up against government promoted fossil fuels. 2002 - 2008 Fossil fuels rec'd 70.2 bb, Traditional renewables rec'd 12.2.
Lastly, the fossil fuels have had 100 years of government backing, shouldn't renewables at least have an equal share of subsidies?
Those who want sollar power station, wind generator or whatever "green" stuff to be build, should go build them by yourself and not taking my hard earn money away.
Stossel is correct, in 1776 Adam Smith published "Wealth of Nations".
In that book Smith did note that while Government does have a role in an economy, any involvement should be minimal, jobs created by Government are simply another redistribution of wealth ( a recurring theme with Obama's Admin.)
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.
I agree with stossel that green jobs crowd out better jobs for people living today. It is still necessary. We must demand for the economy to be harmed for the short run so that the human species may have a chance of surviving beyond the next few centuries. I am terrified of losing the only intelligent sentient life in the universe.
Assuming there is significant climate change, what makes it so bad?
Seems to me producing CO2 is a good thing and is likely to marginally increase the health of most plant life. iow crops will be more robust, trees will be more robust. How is that a problem?
Mr. Stossel, I have enjoyed watching and listening to you for YEARS! You have been one very bright light in an otherwise poorly lit room. Your common sense and expertise in sharing the truth is unmatched. Keep it up now that you are over on Fox!
The funny thing is all Stossel is doing is stating common sense in a practical way. It boggles my mind how far we as a nation have come from using common sense. More and more we are becoming a nation of lazy
21 people are financially illiterate.
zed6952 2 weeks ago 6
Stossel should have given credit to the original source of the broken window fallacy, Henry Hazzlit's book ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON.
mjULTRA 2 months ago
You have to support some industries untill they can stand on their own, that's exactly what is happening right now with wind and solar, ie. solar panels has dropped 2/3 in price the last 3-4 years, if it wasn't supported it wouldn't have gotten this far so quick.
razorgarf 2 months ago
His theory may be correct if we had a level playing field. Right now there is so much money spent lobbying against green energy that entrepreneurs have their hands tied trying to get a business up and running. What happened top the electric car?
papercrete01 2 months ago
@papercrete01 The field is level. The result is not, and it is because green energy is not as good as traditional energy. Just like a better playing team wins at the end of games that start with zero scores. Instead of acknowledging the worth of one team over another, you root for one side by debilitating the other and instead of fairness you want to create a situation in which your team wins instead of the other.
kiminokami 2 months ago
Stossels still a buffoon
The glass fallacy makes sense but he misses that its not necessarily creating a job, but creating DEMAND.
He uses his own argument against himself.
If I build a 500 MW solar panel sys in AZ. Thats gonna cost a pretty penny. But if the power only went to a small city the money saved and eventually "free" energy gained in the future IS LITERALLY creating wealth. It frees up hundreds of dollars during the summer for each home creating more demand & jobs in the econ
fububalla 3 months ago
@fububalla True. The problem is identifying which projects will pay off in the long run. The reason government doing this is a problem (for me at least) is that you cannot opt-out of the government's plan. With private ventures, you are free to get on board or not, depending on your OWN judgement.
ManInAHighCastle 3 months ago
@ManInAHighCastle In most cases you only have One to Three choice of where you get your energy to power your home. For instance I can only get my electricity from Swepco and my gas from Centerpoint in my area. These are both private but they have a regulated monopoly as public utilities. I can opt out of Swepco, but I wouldn't have a cold refrigerador UNLESS I had my own independent power.
I think by 'government plan' you mean using taxpaper money to fund a nascent industry right?
fububalla 3 months ago
@fububalla You miss the important part. If a business invests in something foolish they go out of business. If the government makes a foolish investment everyone suffers not just the fools who made the investment. The reason government investments are so often disasterous is because the things they invest in are usually things the private sector avoids because they are a waste of money
Jimboman300 1 month ago
@Jimboman300 Are you equating green jobs/alternative energy jobs as foolish investments (the broken glass in stossel's dickish analysis?)
I guess if you google Google's headquarters you will see all those bad investments they made that are providing a SUSTAINABLE electricity source for that facility
The reason govt makes bad investments is lobbying/interests groups that overpower the will of the people which happens to be right on many policies fronts (not all of course.)
fububalla 1 month ago
@Jimboman300 Another thing is business, unless specialize, will seek the path of least resistance to profits. This is an extremely short term view which has jeopardized the world economy already.
Government's are designed to take a more comprehensive/long term view concerning national investments.
fububalla 1 month ago
@fububalla Balls.
gmakepiece 3 weeks ago
@fububalla you have a serous misunderstanding of how companies make decisions. Companies don't make decisions on the path least resistance, they make decisions based on the most economically efficient.
ramrants 6 days ago 3
@ramrants my full quote was "business, unless specialized, will seek the path of least resistance to profits." we are talkign about the same thing buddy.
And maybe I should add that this path is often to short term profits and often neglects its effect on other industries. Some companies of course do take a longer term approach but most do not in regards to profit. That's why you have quaterly swings in the market.
fububalla 6 days ago
@Jimboman300 Yes indeed. Like Solyndra, Amonix, Beacon Power, Evergreen, SpectraWatt, AES Eastern, Enerl, etc... The list will continue on and on costing billions on top of billions of wasted taxpayer dollars & end up with jack squat. Our friends to the north Canada's PM Harper has been proven smarter for not jumping on that green bandwagon. Germany is poised to end it, the UK is beginning to rise against it, as are other European countries. Green pushed by government is a fiasco.
SippinonMickeys 2 days ago
@fububalla If 'YOU' build it and it turns out that it works & is profitable the free market will indeed see this and act accordingly. Problem is the government is wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and the free market has seen exactly how profitable it is. Even the rest of the world is backing away from wind & solar, but not the US. Nope. Why? Because the electorate is allowing itself to be plundered by the politicians in office on a lark.
SippinonMickeys 2 days ago
@SippinonMickeys how many false statements can you put in one blurb.
1) the govt is wasting billions but no on green/alternative energy. Just in the energy sector alone over 40 Billion a year in OLD ASS oil and gas subsidies. How much in green energy. 6 billion a year max - do the research.
2) Where the F is your proof that "the world" is backing away from wind and solar?? Give me stats
3) talk about plundering. Oil is $100 a barrel, 40 billion in subs
take ur silliness home
fububalla 1 day ago
I guess stossel would rather $150B dollars be spent on a year and a half in Baghdad?
Great return on investment there...
fububalla 3 months ago
Free market economists and fiscal conservitives ideology complete discounts environmentalism. Wealth should be measured in clean air, clean water, healthy food supplies and safe shelter. The fact that their ideology is challenged so strongly by the notion that it will take goernment to pursue this inititive allows them to minimize the impact of profiteering on the world ecosystem and the overall human condition. Sad!
grecorivera 3 months ago
@grecorivera You're a tard
sirsean1227 3 months ago
If you want a green economy move to spain. Good luck getting a job with 18% unemployment.
skeptictom818 3 months ago
@skeptictom818 A green economy at its zenith will creat surpluses in food and sustainable energy. With those two things there will be little need for jobs. It seems impossible but the biggest barrier it that no one really wants to try it because it would take hard work, sacrifice and battling the interests of the oil barons who have a death grip on humanity.
grecorivera 3 months ago
@grecorivera "little need for jobs"? What are you smoking/drinking/shooting up/snorting?
JustMeOrMaybeNot 3 months ago
@JustMeOrMaybeNot Since the rise of automation we have all kind of unnecesary jobs that have been created just to keep people working and to exploit the world economy. The entire finacial sector are parasites that move numbers around of imaginary money that we are aloud to play with because the rest of the world has been to afraid to do anything about it up to this point. As long as we play along we needs jobs. If we cut out the middle men we can start working for ourselves.
grecorivera 3 months ago
The only task the government has is to keep us free. They failed!
Vote4RonPaulLiberty 3 months ago
How green is wind when it kills thousands and thousands of birds a year? Farmers are upset now because they are killing batts. Now they might have to use more pesticide.
nannyberries 3 months ago
It's not a fallacy in "green jobs". It's a fallacy in democracy actually functioning well- where our representatives actually fight for the common good. Green Jobs does make sense, but nobody is fighting for it: thus, no incentive.
mhmdulce 3 months ago
Dude you aqre a complete twat!!!! What a bunch of bullsit you speak
electroconvulsive 4 months ago
I love the rebate and tax credit programs. Have you ever seen so many people not bothered one bit by standing in a home energy welfare line! Take take take you idiots, never think about where that money comes from! You want to boost our economy? Get the fcking govt. out of it's way!
HomeEnergyNow 5 months ago
Stossel's view of green jobs assumes that the production of non-green fuels is not a negative externality. This is a false assumption as demonstrated perfectly by the gulf oil spill (only the 4th largest oil spill that has occurred so far). Taxation should be concomitant to pollution and environmental destruction, as basic economics demonstrates.
Thatmakessense356 5 months ago
@Thatmakessense356 Yeah, but when it becomes profitable, either because fossil fuels become to expensive OR people think that "green" products/companies are the way to go then it will be done. Until then there is no reason to do anything but invest in research and try to drive costs down below fossil fuels.
metzger90 5 months ago
@Thatmakessense356 To the contrary, the assumption that the market does not adequately address extrenalities is the one entirely without empirical evidence. That regulations forced BP to drill at a depth that made accidents more likely and other regulations created a liability cap that preserved them from bearing the full cost of any problem is not a failure of the market but of regulation ... as basic economics indicates.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@FletchforFreedom Taxes and regulation are different as basic economics indicates.
Thatmakessense356 4 months ago
@Thatmakessense356 Gee, thanks. Since, of course, I never at any time argued that taxes and regulation are the same thing, I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to point that out. Even had I argued that both have decidedly negative economic consequences (which is true), it has no bearing on the fact that the "taxes need to be assessed to address negative externalities not addressed by the market" argument is completely without basis and economically unsound.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
@FletchforFreedom You did argue that they are the same by using an example of government screwing up using regulation. That was completely unrelated to the idea that taxation should be the market-correcting device. You also provided no evidence to support the idea that there are automatic market-righting economic influences. What evidence do you have that the market addresses all externalities properly? How are all costs internalized, or corrected?
Thatmakessense356 4 months ago
@Thatmakessense356 Gotta work on those reasoning skills! I never argued taxes and regulation are the same thing; the BP point was (obviously) a response to the absurd premise that the BP spill was an example of economic externalities rather than massive regulatory failure. There IS no evidence that the market cannot address externalities (and centuries of history of the application of private property rights to accomplish precisely that via tort adjusidcation).
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Thatmakessense356 Gotta work on those reasoning skills! I never argued taxes and regulation are the same thing; the BP point was (obviously) a response to the absurd premise that the BP spill was an example of economic externalities rather than massive regulatory failure. There IS no evidence that the market cannot address externalities (and centuries of history of the application of private property rights to accomplish precisely that via tort adjusidcation).
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
I think that this also has something to do with the nature of the consumer. Speculation is all over the place on this, but eventually, we will run out of oil, and there better be a replacement. The profits promised by alternatives to oil may not come fast enough to save us from economic collapse. Thus, the consumer should really be creating artificial incentives to develop sustainable sources of energy, such as grants, and prizes.
MacabreManifesto 6 months ago
END THE FED END THE FRAUD END THE LIES
END THE BAILOUTS OF THE TO BIGS TO FAIL
wake up
END THE FED END THE FRAUD
singledad1234 6 months ago
This video is racist. I have reported it to youtube and asked them to ban it. If you care about your country and the world, you will do the same. Thank you.
obamaforprez2008 6 months ago
@obamaforprez2008 - please explain how this video "racist". That term is too easily bantered about by Obama supports with no real basis in reality. Just because someone disagrees with a black person doesn't make them a racists nor negate their disagreement. One CAN be white and disagree with a black person purely on philosophical, religious, political, ideological, economic, social grounds. Their race or color of their skin doesn't have to enter into it.
RocktheStageNYC 5 months ago
ONE SMALL Fact was left out. Full cost accounting. Tax pollution, health costs and other costs, and stop SUBSIDIZING Oil Coal, Ethanol, Methanol, Everything elese INCLUDING Green Products and Tecnologies, etc. AND just let CONSUMERS and COMMUNITIES "VOTE with their WALLETS", and take the POLITICIANS out of the Equation all together. PERIOD.
gregvezina 7 months ago
I agree with everything he said. The only problem is that there is no political party which believes in this. The Republicans spend just as much as Democrats do.
gamenode 7 months ago
Yess!!! Listen to this guy! Let European and Chinese companies outrun US in green technology. Maybe 20 century SUVs will become popular again when they find oil on the moon.
AngeCord 7 months ago
@AngeCord Yes, let them waste their money. Their taxpayers can suffer while ours improve their standard of living.
Houshalter 7 months ago
@Houshalter
Western European has the highest standard of living in the world.
mecher3k 7 months ago
@mecher3k by what standard? They have higher prices and lower average incomes. Huge debt to GDP ratios as well. And even if they didn't, how does that prove "green technology" is a good idea? It has nothing to do with the standard of living.
Houshalter 7 months ago
@Houshalter
Let's see your post is filled with lies and strawmen. Nice.
mecher3k 7 months ago
@mecher3k - they also have the smallest populations. Combine the populations of all the Western European countries and compare to the 350million of the US.
RocktheStageNYC 5 months ago
@RocktheStageNYC
So? What is your point? Of course I know their population, I actually look up info about the rest of the world.
mecher3k 5 months ago
@mecher3k - Well goodie for you. Have a cookie and stay up late tonight. The point is you make a blanket statement that Western Europe has a high standard of living. You negate to also mention those countries also run up huge debt with their large social programs, have lower overall incomes and a higher cost of living. How does that relate to green technology? You statement is non-sequitor.
RocktheStageNYC 5 months ago
@RocktheStageNYC
"The point is you make a blanket statement that Western Europe has a high standard of living."
Their overall population is more happy, their education systems are vastly superior, but then again they don't look down on people with intelligence. I could keep on saying how they are kicking the USA's ass if you want.
"You negate to also mention those countries also run up huge debt with their large social programs"
Few have, the rest are in debt thanks to the USA fucking up.
mecher3k 5 months ago
@mecher3k - The US has no fault in the economic troubles or failures of countries like Greece, Italy, Ireland and England. That's due to a very large entitlement society full of give-away social programs with not enough people working to pay for it.
When country has a population smaller than that of New York City, has no military budget, a small infrastructure to maintain it is easy to have a good standard of living. Try that with 350 million people.
RocktheStageNYC 5 months ago
@RocktheStageNYC
I didn't specify any country. Fail, but common with your type.
". That's due to a very large entitlement society full of give-away social programs with not enough people working to pay for it."
Not with Greece or most of the countries you listed. Helps to actually not watch Fox News and do research. I know it's a hard concept for you to understand.
The USA has a bloated military budget that is caused by, get this, contractors aka private businesses.
mecher3k 5 months ago
@mecher3k - when you say "the rest are in debt thanks to the USA" its just a pure lie. They dug their own holes. Um, what part of Greece, Italy, Ireland and England's debt problems is NOT attributive to wide spread social programs?
FYI - I don't watch Fox News - not one minute. I read the newspapers of these countries, Reuters and AP online.
The USA military budget is what it is because we cover the asses of most of Europe.
RocktheStageNYC 5 months ago
@mecher3k I always enjoy when someone criticizes the research skills of others (or makes a nonsensical attack on Fox News0 and then proceed to get thier "facts" entirely wrong. The European countries have, by far, significant welfare state expenditures that are bankrupting them and the transfer payments in the US FAR outweigh military spending. While it is true that the military budget is bloated, that i entirely due to government's inability to manage money, not private businesses.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RocktheStageNYC
"have lower overall incomes"
Actually wrong once you take into account what their taxes pay for. But keep on lying, it's typical of fundies of all kinds.
"a higher cost of living."
Lol.....
"How does that relate to green technology? You statement is non-sequitor."
Lol yet you were the one who replied to my post over a month old. Lol projection is also typical of fundies.
mecher3k 5 months ago
I have never heard such simple logic about the economy.
davitodude 7 months ago
I think it might be a good idea to find a replacement for coal and oil before it runs out.
oneslifesadream 8 months ago
Economics is practical, Politics is just rhetoric and emotions. Quite frankly I'd rather live in a practical world.
ChargersFan08 8 months ago
If it was a good idea to MAKE MORE MONEY, they would jump on it. Why stop making money on oil early? They'll milk it as long as they can, and then switch to other things.
newguy33X 9 months ago
Austrian School of Economy is just pure awesome.
YoungSeungSKY 9 months ago
@YoungSeungSKY
So awesome that not even Austria follows it?
Lol....
mecher3k 7 months ago
How many unemployed people have the skills required to take these green jobs? Why wouldn't big oil invest in these jobs if they would be so lucrative; they have the money and the means to get into such a lucrative business so why wouldn't they? Because they know, it wouldn't work
WingThaiJ 9 months ago
@WingThaiJ they're not finished milking the oil resources yet.
sc0pl355 9 months ago
@sc0pl355 U do know your answer doesn't answer anything right? obviously if they saw it as a viable business, they would have jumped on it in an instant. U have people like Obama & his ignorant administration touting what they consider great ideas, yet they have no concept of real life bus. & why an industry wouldn't jump on board something THEY (dems) SEE as profitable & GREEN. Dems are made up primarily of people w/good sounding ideas that never survive reality, & they never learn their lesson
WingThaiJ 9 months ago
@WingThaiJ no no no.
Look, if they jump on new energy, then they risk losing that oil money. They want the oil money first, then they'll jump on new energy.
sc0pl355 9 months ago
@sc0pl355 There is no question, we need to drill our own oil now; over time such energy endeavors can be transitioned to gradually and if the ideas turn out to be good ideas..
WingThaiJ 9 months ago
I read that they moved the solar panel factory to China.
flubno 10 months ago
If all the passengers in the train are having a big party, and is going straight to a broken bridge, is your conclusion that; the officer in charge of the train cannot look for the brakes just not to spoil the party? Destroying the environment is immoral. Slavery is always more efficient than freedom, you have workers for free until they die; the same way we see slavery immoral today, we will see environmental depredation, water pollution, immoral to Earth to God in a the near future.
lepinosabc 10 months ago
I believe you are also wrong in your statement that Mr. Stossel would have us remain dependent on foreign oil. The US is awash in oil. There are literally 1000 acres in Alaska where the stuff seeps through the ground. I think Mr. Stossel would have the US produce ALL its own oil and energy. And what is wrong with jobs going overseas? Thats how we get to enjoy the products we have here, because they make them cheaper. Cannot do that here, because americans have a "right" to minimum wage.
jtwilson777 11 months ago
As for jobs created, that time period created the middle class. People talk about the shrinking middle class. Isn't interesting that the more regulation and government control we have in all aspects of our lives, the smaller the middle class gets. Since 2000 there have been over 1 million pages of new regulations created. How is that a free market 4edutainment?
jtwilson777 11 months ago
@4edutainment You are saying that because Republicans were in power for 8 years, then the free market was at work. This is not the case. Also it seems that you think the free market was a creation of the new millenium. This is wrong as well. Freer markets have always had positive effects on all aspects of the lives of those who enjoy them. Look at the 19th century, here in the USA. in little more than 100 years this country became the wealthiest nation the world has ever seen.
jtwilson777 11 months ago
I love John Stossel bringing back basic ecomonic lessons that most Americans have forgotten. He reminds me of old economics professors that teach brilliant, yet basic econ. in college courses.
jabberwolf 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Choose a big beautiful woman as your partner naneedj.info
jennykopra 11 months ago
I sorta agree with stossel here. Green jobs are needed and are the future, and they are good. But it needs to be free to the open market. Government can't take care of it.
JXZjeremy 1 year ago
Why does everyone want the government to pay for everything
MaddDogg81 1 year ago
This greens jobs myth is the biggest scam going on in our country today. Stossel couldn't be any more dead on with his analysis of how inefficient it is to use government as a job creator. Wind and Solar have always been the fuels of the future and always will be. Americans will finally get the message once all the money runs out.
theabiotictheory 1 year ago
Stossel is nothing but a nitpicker and complainer. He fails to see that we desperately need new forms of energy to get away from shipping our money to Oil Dictators overseas. And he totally ignores the CLIMATE PROBLEMS. Give me a break with all of the "free market" rap. This idea of the "free market solving problems" sounds good -- but it does not always work. WHERE ARE ALL THE JOBS??? The free market is shipping millions of jobs overseas.
4edutainment 1 year ago
@4edutainment Climate Problems ? Oh ya i forgot about Climate gate. Tax the CO2 we exhale to fix the broken windows.Tax the trees which consume the deadly CO2 and makes oxygen. Obama will soon tax Aspirin..........Because it works. If there was money to be made in Green Jobs don't you think G/E would have been all over it? I agree with you when you say all our jobs are being sent overseas. NAFTA GAT Cheaper labor = more profit. With less regulations and corporate tax.
Kikkins 1 year ago
@Kikkins -- WHERE ARE ALL THE JOBS...via the free market? Republicans were in power 8 years and millions of jobs were lost. As for the mess about "Climate tax" -- I did not mention that. Many GREEN JOBS are already being created and will in the future -- electric cars, solar powered technology, etc. Stossel is out of touch and behind the times....and "free market" did nothing so far but create 10% UNEMPLOYMENT. When does that get better? Not with Stossels stale ideas.
4edutainment 1 year ago
"If green energy is a good idea, it'll replace coal and oil"
Yeah...in a couple of centuries when the economy an environment are in stambles and it doesn't make any difference...
CaiusRising 1 year ago
@CaiusRising That's odd because the economy and the environment are getting better all the time. Where do you live... in Congo???
Green energy will never replace coal or oil unless you can wave your magic wand and make it work.
Besides why are you so against the use of coal and oil? What are we going to do with it? Look at it?
karozans 1 year ago
@karozans The environment is getting better? The environment has been getting worse--in the sense of loss of species, unnatural alterations to climate, and so forth--at least since the Industrial Revolution.
I don't mind using fossil fuels. There are plenty of things you can do with it that don't involve burning it and releasing greenhouse gases and other gunk into the atmosphere.
CaiusRising 1 year ago
@CaiusRising Actually you are completely wrong. The air quality and water quality has gotten better by several orders of magnitude since the 1900's. If you don't believe me watch John Stossel's videos on the environment and global warming. There is no real science that says man is causing GW and the EPA says air and water is cleaner. You have no evidence to show that the Earth is getting worse. You are simply repeating what some silly college professor is saying.
karozans 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karozans
"There is no real science that says man is causing GW"
Lol couldn't be more wrong fucking retard.
mecher3k 7 months ago
oil is highly subsidized, thru taxes and our military war machine. And its been subsidized for decades.
Roads are an example of how new jobs are created from government outreach. Without roads, how would modern commerce happen? Would modern commerce be as large as it is if there was no roads? Thus, while you might not be able to point to individual jobs that roads created, its undeniable that roads has increased commerce by lightyears.
bdhcarbon 1 year ago
This video is a bit short sighted. Does the broken window fallacy apply. What if instead of hiring a glazer to repair the window a enterprising window owner invented a new non-breakable window. Then created a company to produce these windows. Some glazers would lose out because of less future repair jobs. But society has gained from a new unbreakable window that may have more henceforth unknown applications. New ventures require brave investors. If there are no investors should gov't step in?
macduggles 1 year ago
The thing that Stossel doesn't like is context. Columbus came to the America's because the Spanish government put up taxpayers money, at the time that was a very high risk venture. Any ways, becoming less dependent on foreign oil is good from a military point of view too & saves money in the long run.
Intransitman 1 year ago
What sucks is that consumers care more about price than about sustainability in purchasing a product. If there was greater demand for sustainably produced products and low emission energy sources, then the marketplace would fulfill this demand. Problem is that everyone blames the corporations without taking personal responsibility.
beats299 1 year ago
Makes sense to a certain point. Problem is companies have cornered the market on research and seriously limit the creative nature of science. Obviously someone has to pay for the research, and they're the most capable of doing so. But seriously, there needs to be SOME money in public research without corporations pulling scientists strings.
beats299 1 year ago
@beats299 A-men.
CalicoVall 1 year ago
@beats299 So you propose that governments pull scientists strings instead?
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@studentofsmith Yes. Government bureaucracy is inefficient and less stringent in terms of producing results. This gives scientists the ability to take risks in producing research that companies would deem otherwise unprofitable. But its this type of research that indirectly contributes to major scientific improvements. I'm not saying tax payers should foot a large bill, just a nominal one.
beats299 1 year ago
@beats299 Millions of dollars have been raised by private charities for medical and other research that it would not be profitable for businesses to invest in. The more government funding, however, the less private funding since a) people will have less money and b) the belief that "the government's funding it" will relive people of any sense of responsibility to donate. Yes, public funding does increase the overall dollar amount but centralizing the source reduces creativity.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
NERD!!!
TheJcp1234 1 year ago
Wow, I think you would be hard pressed to find a bigger asshole 'reporter' than John Stossel... In the words of George Carlin, "Just the worst kind of lying criminal cocksucker you could ever come across....
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak Do you ever have anything valuable to say?
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
wouldn't it be awsome if Stossel ran for president
inkey2 1 year ago
Why in the world do people think that the government will be so much better than private enterprise? The post office....Fedex and UPS have shown they know hot to do it better. The DMV is a mess...NASA just recently got its funding severely cut. The government is not interested in making money, it gets free money from the taxpayer. When you are not interested in making money, you CANNOT sustain some big program because you don't generate anything. Ultimately you have to take more free money.
Intheeventof 1 year ago
@Intheeventof SHOCKINGLY ignorant.
eaodak 1 year ago
I agree and somewhat disagree with this philosophy:
When it comes to green energy products, many ideas are so massive, expensive, and require several years worth of R&D before they can even contemplate hitting the free market. Think NASA in the 60's, no private entrepreneur would dare risk such a concept. Even the wealthiest of individuals won't risk the initial capital it takes on green energy. If the gov projects work, the free market would then pick up the bulk.
MegaAvalonn 1 year ago
@MegaAvalonn
BTW, The window example isn't the best metaphor to use in this situation, but it would be appropriate towards descriping the USA military-industrial complex. More accurate is the government is building a fancy window that may or may not sell/work, if it doesn't work, too bad, if it does, other private companies will build these windows.
MegaAvalonn 1 year ago
@MegaAvalonn The point you're missing is still the fact that govn't distorts the free market economy which ultimately leads to higher prices and more unemployment. If the money that govn't spends on some product or project is instead put into the people's hands, then that money is spent more wisely than any govn't bureaucrat can. Also, who says the free market would pick up the bulk. You're making many, many assumptions there. I could come up with tons of questions on that one!
mikebri527 1 year ago
@MegaAvalonn "Even the wealthiest of individuals won't risk the initial capital it takes on green energy."
So why should the taxpayer? It's just like nuclear power. No private company will insure a nuclear reactor since they don't want a potential billion dollar liability on their books; but governments rush in where people who would have to risk their own money fear to tread. If private individuals won't do it because it's "too risky" maybe we should take the hint.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
I have a bit of a problem with this one. It took government to do several things like get seat-belts in cars, and government needs to regulate the market and make sure nobody's cheating, and they need to regulate all sorts of things like meat processing. This idea that green jobs isn't a good idea is a bit of a non-sequitor b/c we need new forms of clean energy. We can't keep depending on coal and oil and we can't rely on the market b/c coal and oil already have a bit of a monopoly.
halvor311 1 year ago
These people only give a shit about money, it's disgusting. What about the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the food you eat? American greed will only last so long, until it's too late to start being human being again.
10qqz 1 year ago
Government can create value to the economy if its programs were a useful investment, such as government development of roads allows for increased infrastructure for the economy for years to come.
ainefairygoddess 1 year ago
@ainefairygoddess
So you are saying that goverment redirecting money from the economy to it's desired location as an investment is good if the potential target is good in that perspective, for example those roads that you are talking about?
Finlandcitizen 1 year ago
@ainefairygoddess Agreed but they cant be hampered by earmarks and new legislation. This new infrastructure stimulus should have been the first Obama stimulus imo. But Stossel is as always right on.
ak47523 1 year ago
the magical market!!! it's never wrong!!! cream rising to the top.....shit floats
MMZen 1 year ago
the magical market!!! it's never wrong!!!
MMZen 1 year ago
I think green energy is a grate idea. I am a huge fan of ethanol. I am not a fan of subsidies, but i think oil has been helped out by government allot throughout history. personally i think if the E85 and blender pumps were everywhere and Ethanol and gas were made to compete, ethanol can compete without subsidies. but we should stop trying to control the worlds oil supply so much. and you are right if the money isn't invested in green jobs it would be invested somewhere else. Over seas.
switchgrassfuel 1 year ago
In Nevada, the attack ads on Sharon Angle quote her saying "it's not my job to bring industry to this state".
Of course they cut out the part where she says that its her job to create legislation that will motivate companies to move over here. I don't know why people who vote for Democrats always want the government to wipe their ass for them.
Pyromaniac721 1 year ago
people dont get it. if there was money in green jobs, people would do it.
hint0122 1 year ago 11
@hint0122 People would do green job if there was money in it UNLESS an outside force makes it too risky - i.e., the government imposing new taxes that would make it less profitable to invest. Either way, it's the government's fault.
jaybreak 6 months ago
@hint0122 - exactly. If "green technology" was viable the wealthy would be jumping to invest in it. They are not.
RocktheStageNYC 6 months ago
anyone would be investing in it. bill gates started from nothing
hint0122 5 months ago
@hint0122 - Yes, Bill Gates started out of his garage but nobody really touched his ideas as an investment until he had a proven company worthy of it.
Careful investors spend their days looking for interests with little risk and a big payout. If green technology had an immediate future they'd be on it in a heartbeat. They are not.
Perhaps someday, but in reality the technology hasn't advanced much since the 1970's.
RocktheStageNYC 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RocktheStageNYC
"If green technology had an immediate future they'd be on it in a heartbeat. They are not.
Perhaps someday, but in reality the technology hasn't advanced much since the 1970's."
LOL.
mecher3k 5 months ago
@hint0122 I agree that there's no money in green jobs right now, but subsidies to oil companies right now makes it more profitable to have non-green jobs.
DimeLivesInUs 4 months ago
@DimeLivesInUs Actually, while subsidies to oil companies are ill-advised, they are relatively tiny, particularly in comparison to additional taxes imposed on the industry and are not even remotely responsible for making fossil fuel use more profitable than the FAR-from profitable "green jobs" being subsidized (at a massively greater percentage).
You are repeating a canard - and a silly one at that.
FletchforFreedom 4 months ago
I have to say, seeing John Stossel break a window was pretty awesome.
DestroyEvolveCreate 1 year ago 18
I hate guys like this. They just complain and never point to any solutions. Yet it's their pathetic industry that leaves us with such a shallow and partisan view or reality in the first place. What a cretin.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts - The solution is the free market. Capitalism drives everyone to succeed by incentivizing hard work. Capitalism reduces costs for better goods, thus increasing the standard of living for everybody. Capitalism puts no restrictions on the poor or the rich, but leaves them free to succeed, or learn from their mistakes and find a better area to apply themselves.
Government interferes with this process costing all of society and encouraging businesses to cozy up with politicians.
netster007z 1 year ago
@netster007z, I agree completely. I wish someone would give capitalism a try. Gosh, I think the natural role of government is to evaporate completely by embedding anything it presently does into the fabric of the economy itself. I don't see an intrinsic need for any government of any sort. So I couldn't agree more that it's the source of our problems and have designed a way to get much better leadership based on making our political capital more tangible.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts
We need government to protect us from thieves, cheats, and foreign enemies, but once it tries to provide for us, it does FAR more harm than good. In the words of a fellow 'antigovernment radical', "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as government grows, liberty decreases."
And for the record, that 'antigovernment radical' is named Thomas Jefferson.
netster007z 1 year ago
@netster007z, I don't believe in foreigners. We are the same species. We inhabit the same indivisible biosphere. These boundaries you see are only measures of the dysfunction of our culture; the error in our perspective. We have thieves because we've created an economy that rewards theft more than it does hard work. (Steal a dollar and it's all yours, earn one honestly and you must give part of it to the government.) And we have fraud mostly because we teach our children to worship fraud.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts - When I refer to foreign enemies, I mean the legitimate power of government to protect us from aggression by other aka foreign governments, as enumerated in the constitution. As far as whether to use the word foreign, that seems like more of a word preference.
I agree that big government encourages theft and discourages hard work. Why should a business work hard and innovate if they can just buy dinners for a politician and get taxpayer funds through the stimulus pack instead?
netster007z 1 year ago
@netster007z, I understood that. It is the right word. I'm just denying the legitimacy of all governments because they have become obsolete and dysfunctional. It makes no sense to delegate our sovereignty in such primitive ways. The aggression is between governments over a sovereignty that none of them have a fair title to in the first place. This seems to confirm my point. We should be looking for ways to build a meta-government in cyberspace. Where we can spend our political capital directly.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@netster007z - Yes govts role is mainly to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity".
RocktheStageNYC 5 months ago
windmills and solar panels are ineffective. That's why no one is investing in them.
This is the 21st century. Energy needs are very high. Everyone has a TV, computer, Air Conditioner/heater. If you're going to offer an alternative, at least offer a viable alternative.
Pvtjamesryan2 1 year ago
Look up "the Green Fallacy" on youtube, barnes and noble, or amazon to learn more about lying environmentalists!
geoffmullins 2 years ago
Putting money into green research, like Cold Fusion, for which new money had been granted. One month later the expert scientist, former nay-sayer convert, was violently murdered in his home.
Naturally, not a single media outlet covered the latest Cold Fusion set back and the ruthlessness of the fuel markets.
UnoRaza 2 years ago
UnoRaza: Have the police found any evidence connecting the murder and his research?
If so, please post a link.
studentofsmith 2 years ago
Do you think a multi-billion dollar a year industry and the tyrants that lead them would use one of their employees?
These people have "ROBOT" mind control victims at their disposal; those that will even take their own life if programmed and triggered to do so.
This "technology" has been released into the public domain; it's not just a Rothschild/CIA/FreeMason thing anymore.
Did u get the rest of the Jon Bennet story?
(ie. Found a "How to Mind Control using a Stun Gun" video in home.)
UnoRaza 2 years ago
UnoRaza: In other words, no.
P.S. It would be a lot cheaper to hire a hitman.
studentofsmith 2 years ago
He's ignoring the ethical component of the pollution that fossil fuels cause. Isn't there good in reducing our dependence on fuel source that destroys large portions of the surface of the planet we are trying to live on!?
jdstein1 2 years ago
Economics is a science (sort of) and as such does not address ethical issues. It does, however, address externalities such as pollution. The reason fossil fuels are so cheap is because the consumer does not pay for the environmental damage they cause, the cost is externalized. If consumers had to pay for the damage it causes the costs would be internalized and the price of fossil fuels would reflect their true cost, giving "green" technology a boost in the free market.
studentofsmith 2 years ago
@studentofsmith It's interesting that you think economics isn't relevant to ethics. Ever read any Ayn Rand? Or better yet, the foundation of socialism/communism, is altruism.
InFromTheVoid 1 year ago
@InFromTheVoid Economics is a tool, like medicine. Medicine can be used to cure. It can also be used to kill. That we should use it cure is the moral argument.
Economics can be used to demonstrate that free markets support life. That we should support life is the moral argument.
---
"I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@studentofsmith: "I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
How long do you think you would continue to live without all of the other life, both human and non-human, that's around you? On the other hand there isn't an individual of any species on earth that we'd even notice was missing if not a part of our lives. It simply couldn't be more clear: the very purpose of life is merely to empower other life.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts I choose to live in a symbiotic (mutually voluntary and beneficial) relationship with my fellow human beings rather than a parasitic one. I do not seek to benefit at the expense of my fellows nor do I willingly permit others to benefit at my expense. This is the core of morality.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@studentofsmith, That's a very nobel desire, but isn't really possible considering that simply in order to survive you're forced to have impact on other people. The mere fact that we must share a single biosphere means that as our wealth increases the amount of impact we have on other people necessarily increases as well. Thus, in order to achieve neutrality we must compensate for that externality by effectively trading "rights that represent that impact" in an open market of some sort.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@studentofsmith, Should we be required to redress the impact that using our automobiles have on other people or not?
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Air is a natural resource. At birth you begin using this natural resource to breath. Doing so establishes a right of prior usage. As such no one may utilize the air in a manner which materially interferes with your prior usage.
Vehicle emissions reduce the utility of the air for breathing so motorists benefit at the expense of those who do not drive. Given the high taxes on gasoline, however, one could make the argument motorists are already compensating non-drivers.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@studentofsmith, I don't see how a gas tax could possibly compensate for that impact unless it actually redressed it--generating income for those who dumped less into the air at the expense of those who dump more. Any mechanism that simply yielded the same benefit for everyone, as the current mechanism does, actually only exacerbates the problem because it makes the loss that much harder to recognize. It is taking someone's wealth away to spend it on something that we believe will benefit them.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts It does generate income for those who dump less into the air... by virtue of a reduced tax burden. The benefits of government spending are widespread (or at least they should be) while the costs are concentrated on drivers. An imperfect solution but a pragmatic application of moral principal given the ambiguity of property rights in this case.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@studentofsmith, I don't see how someone who never drives, but must endure all of the pollution, noise, dust, and hazards those who do is "benefiting" from the fact that they're paying no gas taxes. Your solution effectively does exactly what you claimed to be against: forcing someone to live for the sake of others. The only way to actually redress a taking is with a giving. Some form of wealth must flow from the person enjoying the benefit the taking permits, to the person harmed by it.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Government expenditures (ideally) benefit everyone more or less equally. Therefore everyone should, in fairness, contribute more or less the same amount to the public purse. If a particular group of persons, drivers in this case, are contributing more then logically everyone else contributes less. In the absence of a fuel tax non-drivers would experience an overall increase in their tax burden or a reduction in government services. My argument is that this, effectively, is a giving.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
This video ignores the fact that fossil fuels far outpace those provided for renewables.
He makes a great point that the market should determine if renewables are worth their cost; however, it fails to mention that they're up against government promoted fossil fuels. 2002 - 2008 Fossil fuels rec'd 70.2 bb, Traditional renewables rec'd 12.2.
Lastly, the fossil fuels have had 100 years of government backing, shouldn't renewables at least have an equal share of subsidies?
daggo1219 2 years ago
daggo1219: Why not just remove the subsidies on fossil fuels? That would level the playing field and it wouldn't cost taxpayers a cent!
studentofsmith 2 years ago
Well said indeed.
Those who want sollar power station, wind generator or whatever "green" stuff to be build, should go build them by yourself and not taking my hard earn money away.
DDG993 2 years ago
Stossel is correct, in 1776 Adam Smith published "Wealth of Nations".
In that book Smith did note that while Government does have a role in an economy, any involvement should be minimal, jobs created by Government are simply another redistribution of wealth ( a recurring theme with Obama's Admin.)
genusrightwingus 2 years ago
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.
Thomas Sowell
bdr910 2 years ago 18
I'm waiting for a liberal to ignore the story and start yelling...
"John Stossel is insighting violence.... he's rioting, and breaking windows!!!"
csgforme 2 years ago 2
I agree with stossel that green jobs crowd out better jobs for people living today. It is still necessary. We must demand for the economy to be harmed for the short run so that the human species may have a chance of surviving beyond the next few centuries. I am terrified of losing the only intelligent sentient life in the universe.
jffryh 2 years ago
"We MUST"?
JackBlair2 2 years ago
yes i really think so.
jffryh 2 years ago
Why?
JackBlair2 2 years ago
So that we can stop the worst of climate change from happening
jffryh 2 years ago
You're assuming it's even happening.
JackBlair2 2 years ago 2
What climate change?
Assuming there is significant climate change, what makes it so bad?
Seems to me producing CO2 is a good thing and is likely to marginally increase the health of most plant life. iow crops will be more robust, trees will be more robust. How is that a problem?
Or do you not look at any details, just cry wolf?
maskedphrogg 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
maskedphrogg 2 years ago
Mr. Stossel, I have enjoyed watching and listening to you for YEARS! You have been one very bright light in an otherwise poorly lit room. Your common sense and expertise in sharing the truth is unmatched. Keep it up now that you are over on Fox!
ProudConservative2 2 years ago 3
greenjobs is bs, global warming is a political agenda, the british university green scam is caught
prass7 2 years ago
his condescending tone is perfect. and then he ends up talking about a solution. take a queue from john
Jicim 2 years ago 2
I like him too
AmRonPaulian 2 years ago
Good example of the broken window fallacy, a fallacy used as apologetic for the grossest forms destruction, including war.
And speaking of war, where is all THAT money being moved around to?
virgy45 2 years ago
The funny thing is all Stossel is doing is stating common sense in a practical way. It boggles my mind how far we as a nation have come from using common sense. More and more we are becoming a nation of lazy