Waaaa! we have highways instead of cow trod paths! waaaa! We have a 99% litercy rate: statist indoctrination! Waaaa, we can't sell this utopian nonsense to people who have solid view of history. waaaaaaa! we're libertarians, how dare you want the United States of America, WE DEMAND THE UnUnited NonStates of America! That's what the non-founding fathers and non-revolutionary war has justly wrought! not!
@shadownor You are correct that the government has a hand in funding all of these programs. But you assume something huge. You assume that all these things could not be provided without the government. If we follow your logic, before government, no one build any roads, or built any schools, no one learned anything, nothing worth anything could ever be built by anyone other than the government. This assumption is just wrong.
@Butmunch666 That doesn't make any sense to me. You seem to have the syntax of logic, but not quite the gist of it. The fact is that because the gov't is the educator of last resort (educating most of us), in no way presupposes that ONLY the gov't can educate. But because of the gov't being the educator of last resort, we have a 99% literacy rate. And history offers no examples of that rate otherwise.
Taxes for 'providing for the common defense" and "promoting the general welfare" are AMERICAN.
Go to Somalia where there is no gov't, nor gov't security nor infrastructure. Show me how you'll prosper there without infrastructure. No buildings codes! They must be free, right?
Go to Somalia, just to show the rest of us 'statist' that your nonsense works? ???
Libertarianism wants to 'return' America to a glory that never once existed. They claim that they want to 'restore' the Constitution, but in fact the want to ignore the whole process of of the LACK of gov't powers, from the Articles of Confederation, that led us to said Constitution.
The Articles of Confederation envisioned such a weak gov't that it was untenable to the veterans, the people and the propitious esteem of other (OMG STATIST) nation states.
Actually what we want to do is limit the state so that we can preserve the freedom of the people. Libertarianism is based on voluntary interactions among individuals with respect to natural human rights and the enforcement of contracts. This is the basic premise but we realize that the world isnt perfect and never will be, so limited government would be one that protects the rights of individuals and enforces voluntary contracts.
@IxenBlaze Libertarianism has the burden of proof; it claims that it is the intent of the founding fathers, but actual the founding fathers were all statist (imagined term.) Libertarianism MUST prove how little gov't can preserve a people of 300 million (US) without Utopian dogma. What are the models, where is the proof? Why does this modern unproven cult presuppose that everyone else must answer its brown shirts?
@IxenBlaze "Actually what we want to do is limit the state so that we can preserve the freedom of the people." The state is merely the current object of unchecked and grossly aggregated private powers, due to discredited nonsense such as yours.
I am so sick of 'Broken Windows Fallacy' referred to as a fallacy. The fallacy is with the people who propose it and think bridges, schools and infrastructure as 'theft' Get your heads out of your asses and breathe for a while.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the COMMON DEFENSE and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States
I would suggest the same for you as your not even applying the logic behind the story. I would suggest reading some works by Bastiat before ranting and raving as the fallacy is still being repeated today by pundits trying to find some good out of destruction to make themselves feel better.
I disagree, Government spending during a recession does not help at all, and may make things worse. A quick study of recessions in the major nations since the end of WW2 shows that those with the most Keynesian spending had the longest recovery times.
@o5iiawah, then if this video is 15 years old in logic, maybe you should get some venture capital and create the Libertarian Stupid Nonsense Channel.... If you're right, you'll make a mint!
If you dont like bridges and highways, you should move to another country. America doesn't need this selfish crap, and infrastructure has ALWAYS been an American standard. Please move to Somalia, there is hardly any regulation there... so Somalia must be prosperous! Right?
@o5iiawah Ya! Let's increase corporate power on elections! Let's reduce the filthy power of 'We the People'. Let's call infrastructure socialism; and democracy communism. Just crouch down and lick the corporate hand that feeds you. Just wear the sneakers and watch the sitcoms.
@shadownor "we the people" is the problem. Government does things in the name of the arbitrary people, ignoring the liberty of the Person. You just proved my point. No administration is more in bed with the newsmedia and wall street than Obama. GE controls NBC. GE makes a 9BN profit and gets money back from the taxpayer. Goldman Sachs is a huge contributor to Obama. You want to take on crony capitalism, it starts at the white house.
@o5iiawah thanks for not calling me an idiot. I'm not an Obama fan, and I don't like what he does. I want money out of politics completely, and in my opinion the source of this problem started with the Republicans?
gov't has a role in breaking up monopolies. I think that gov't has a role in oversight of the economy.
I believe article 1, section 8 of the constitution: that congress shall provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare is a general clause for good reason.
Eh to comment on government breakup of monopolies, I think your setting yourself up for dissappointment in that venue. Politicians have a lot of balls critisizing anyone for creating monopolies.
@IxenBlaze Money in politics has produced politicians that work for the wealthy only, thus Saint Reagan stopped enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust act, and then the Gramm–Leach–Bliley-Clinton Act assured that banks could grow up to the sun. This is how we got here, gov't is supposed to work for the people... agree with you that it does not at the present.
Are you serious? It has nothing to do with Saint Reagan and everything to do with how the government has created monopolies, cartels, and oligopolies all the while claiming to be against monopolies. The fed is the biggest cartel of banks this nation has ever had, not to mention government crackdown of competition in the mailing industry in the early days as well as squashing bread makers who were making affordable bread. The government has always been the biggest hypocrite on this
@o5iiawah 'Arbitrary people?' Shame! Conservatives think that the rich people are fixed and the people interchangeable; liberals think that the people are fixed and the barons interchangeable. Demand-side economics is the correct economics, that is why the 'filthy' people always do better under democratic lawmaking. SEVENTY percent of our economy is consumer spending, so if you preserve the middle-class, you preserve the economy.. Demand is prior and superior to supply.
To correct the others, the fallacy doesnt have much to do with creating and building up something. The fallacy comes into play when someone says that we are all the more wealthy when something is destroyed because someone is employed to fix it up. Doesnt have much to do with building bridges and highways per se.
The fallacy is how this 'fallacy' is commonly framed: it presupposes that paying for bridges, traffic lights and highways are malicious vandalisms to civilization. This comes under the 'if you like infrastructure then you are a statist' fallacy.
I believe Hamilton's Report on Manufactures (1791) roundly trounces the Utopian notion that we could have made it this far with a gov't seated in a building no larger than a grass hut. We set up education and cut canals as far back as then.
1. If you don't break the window first, only the improvement will be the true result of the action, except spendings in the military which can never be an improvement for society in the first place.
2. There is no guarantee that spending will add to employment. Its probable that spending will add to the company bosses already preposterous salury and bonuses though. It can also be spent to make the company more efficient by replacing people with automatised production, which adds to unemployment.
@BrytaPlanka "It can also be spent to make the company more efficient by replacing people with automatised production, which adds to unemployment."
Yep, used to be over 80% of the population was employed in agriculture but thanks to automation it now around 10%. No wonder we have such an unemployment problem, all those people being replaced with machines.
@IxenBlaze My comment was a sarcastic response to the often expressed concern that automation is taking over manufacturing jobs. I was pointing out that we have been down this road before with argiculture and that the result was a shift in employment to more productive work and an increase in our standard of living.
2. The unemployment resulting from technological improvements are mostly temporary which people will have to find some skills that allow them to compensate. Technological advances also allow people to move onto higher order jobs because of increases in productivity allow people to provide more and to fulfill more economic needs which then enables a more advanced division of labor because not everyone needs to work as hard to provide for basic needs.
@IxenBlaze Temporary? No. Once replaced, the worker is not getting that job back. Most companies have no interest in our basic needs, they are inventing other needs for us on the expense of the environment. Companies increased productivity due to automatisation does not allow the unemployed worker to provide for his needs. Our economy system is silly since it wants everyone to work even though its not needed, and at the same time reward companies for getting rid of employment costs for profit.
Who decides what is needed and wanted? There is really no universal declaration of what every human being wants. Automation does allow for people to provide more of what they need by making it possible to produce more at a lower price for the consumer. The company doesnt determine what we want, only the individual consumer determines what he or she wants which is in itself a subjective evaluation. Your premises seem to be based on alot of assumptions that just arent real.
@IxenBlaze Who decides what is needed and wanted? It's the companies that decides what we have to choose from. It's the politicians that decide the rules and laws that will change the premiss for how the companies will act to be successful, and we both know what politicians are like. Currently, as cheap production as possible for as high sale price to customer as possible is what our idiotic economic system rewards. Both the people, animals and the environment will loose if we follow this route.
Eh? I dont even follow your premise because it makes no sense... From an economic standpoint, the companies dont decide what we get to choose from as they are competing for our business because they want our money and the only way to do that in this society is to trade something with us and in order to do that, they must produce more stuff that consumers want at a lower price to satisfy more consumers. In essence consumers ultimately decide what they want to or dont want to buy.
@IxenBlaze Sure they do. For example, the world population have asked for a great service from the big movie companies for viewing movies and series. A service that can compete with filesharing in a serious way, kind of like Steam practicly eliminated filesharing for PC games and Spotify replaced music filesharing, but the movie companies simply don't want to do that, so they don't. It's the companies that decide what we can choose to buy. We can never buy something they don't want to sell.
@IxenBlaze Also, people want stuff that doesn't break when the warranty is out, but companies want to do stuff to break when the warranty is over because they know they will get a new customer then. Computers are a good example for this. Some hardware is made less durable on purpose. No customer wants that.
@IxenBlaze Commercials is another example of something consumers didn't ask for. The commercials in your physical mailbox, your email, and pretty much everywhere in the city is not asked for by the consumers. It's forced upon us and it effects the choices we make whether we want it or not.
@IxenBlaze To clarify what I meant with the comment before your reply... If the politicians make a very high environmental tax for pollution and a reward for not polluting, the companies will adapt to that. If the state use money to build and strengthen important infrastructure, that place will be a better and more reliable place for setting up and running a business. John Stossel ignores the infrastructure improvements and throw rocks instead. Governments usually don't throw rocks on windows.
Another simpleton drivel by our media resident Libertarian, John "mustache" Stossel.
He sets up the premise in such a way that he can mold it into a fallacy. If he is right, then WWII spending should have gotten us into a whole lot of trouble for at least the following 3 decades. But it didn't. Why? Because the various economical parameters were in favor of government spending at the time
So, it is not about spending or not spending, but rather it depends on the economical circumstances.
He also talks about "broken window" as if government's action is about going around, blowing things up just to fix them. No, government's spending, in this case, is about fixing things that are in state of deterioration, i.e. infrastructure like highway or what not.
@ninuxy The previous "stimulus" bill earmarked plenty of money to fix a certain bridge. Now Obama makes a campaign stop to push for his new "jobs" bill (more "stimulus") at a bridge that's not properly maintained, saying the bill needs to be passed or else... BUT IT'S THE SAME BRIDGE. Government wastes money, and the larger the government, the more it wastes. Period.
What do you call going to war and building up nations in the aftermath? Governments do that all the time. They also tear things down in order to rebuild em right at home as well. Id suggest watching the incredible bread machine documentary.
@ninuxy Stossel didn't invent the broken window fallacy. It's a well-established, highly supported bit of reasoning. Your criticisms and petty insults only expose yourself as ignorant and closed-minded. As for WW2, you've got it exactly backwards, as can be seen by the fact that your ilk of that day were complaining about government spending going down after the war, saying the economy would crash so govt spending had to continue at high levels - which of course did not bear out.
Most keynsian economists were afraid that unemployment would shoot back up following the end of the war so they were warning about that. They were wrong in assuming unemployment would shoot up and stay that way following the war.
Even without going into your current premise, your explaining in your own words something that contradicts your earlier assumption that nobody was suggesting to keep spending at WW II levels. The keynsian prescription is simplistic at best, government spending cures recessions and with that premise, the keynsians were afraid of the postwar unemployment and did suggest that we continue spending.
@IxenBlaze Government spending does not automatically cure recessions -- I did not make such statement an axiom, but rather used it to counter that in some cases, it does and mostly, it would at least stops the bleeding.
Different economical circumstances require different strategies. You cannot lump every event under the exact same scenario where economical parameters vary.
@ninuxy (1)A recession is pretty straight forward, & implies a specific set of required "parameters.(2) Don't we do all the lumping symbolically-- by titling periods of time, recession or prosperity? (3)If you stuff my gym-sock in a gun-wound it will surely "stop the bleeding", but I imagine it will have undesirable long term consequences.
@Xzilalnx2 1) Tautological argument won't get you far in life. Taking words out of context, or failure in reading comprehension also follows the same suit.
2) Irrelevant to the reasons I made my comment which you poorly criticized.
3) Yes, bleeding to "death" also has a very short term consequence: death. How does mindless analogies working out for you?
TT was a sarcastic response to a defensive tone. 1)Your oversimplification of my response could also be construed as tautological in nature 2)toucé. Youtube is not designed to be a robust forum of fully observable conversations. 3)"to death" was not in your original (talk about out of context) Analogies are just a way of conveying ideas; they are not themselves the ideas, or the supporting facts. If you do not get the idea the analogy attempted to convey that doesn't make it mindless.
Actually the broken window fallacy has been around much longer than John Stossel. The credit for this goes to the french economist Frederick Bastiat who completely destroyed the notion that breaking ***** and fixing it is a net gain for the economy and for employment. WW II was just that, breaking **** in order to fix it and drafting nearly the entire workforce into war while leaving everybody at home to suffer economic planning and harsh rationing because we were not producing(cont)
We were not producing the things that consumers need because practically all production was geared towards warfare and capital/wealth destruction. WW II didnt get us out of the depression, the elimination of wage/price controls as well as a return to normal production of wealth and capital advancement along with workforce growth is what ended it.
Great theory except no one is going around breaking things so we can fix them. There are things that are already broken, like bridges and roads, that need fixed and that's the business of government. So, yeah, the theory totally sucks.
@jimbojim68 I don't think you understand the theory. The broken window theory has nothing to do with destroying things just to rebuild them it's about the unseen consequences of a situation. The original metaphor had a vandal who broke a window and a guy saying that this would boost the economy by FORCING the owner to fix it. but another guy corrected him by pointing out that the money would have likelyspent the money anyway and likely on something more worthwhile than maintance like technology.
@666or999 OK, well, they are saying the money spent on the stimulus were tax dollars that would have been spent by the people who were taxed. However, that is why we have a jobs crisis. Job creators are holding on to record wealth and not spending it. The stimulus is supposed to keep people working, keep businesses open and help create new industries with grants.
My problem with Stossel is that he is trying to frame the stimulus with Bastiat's parable of the broken window where it doesn't fit.
Actually the reason why we had an economic crisis is because the capital structure of the economy during the housing boom was an illusion brought about by artificial credit. Holding onto money is just saving it for when an opportunity presents itself and when the distortion is cleared for more sound long term investments.
This is not John Stossel's theory. Frederic Bastiat first postulated it in the 19th century. History began long before any of us were around to see it on youtube.
The broken window fallacy is predicated on the idea the government borrows or taxes money to fund it's spending on broken windows. This crowds out private investment to fix the broken window, which by the way could have been better spent on a new suit. Agreed on that point. The truth is, the government has a printing press which means it has no need to finance it's spending. Thus crowding out is a myth and the broken window fallacy is reduced to an unfortunate criminal act. Taxes fund nothing.
@RoobieRhoo Printing money for goverment spending increases the govements relative buying power. The rest of us therefore get smaller relative buying power. In other words, printing woks just like taxes, as it shifts buying power from the people to the goverment (or to the banks).
@aekel66 You are correct. The government can crowd out goods and services for sale, but such spending in excess of capacity is wasteful and such aggregate demand should be left to the consumer. Still, taxes are simply a drain on the money supply and do not crowd out investment. Banks create money from thin air and can fund any credit worthy, economically feasible investment willing to pay the price of that credit.
@RoobieRhoo Ah, no. The printing of money has the same effect as taxing or borrowing it because the money supply increases but the wealth level supporting it remains unchanged and the result is that savings lose value (inflation) and the fallacy still remains entirely true.
@FletchforFreedom The key point is the money supply must increase and must stress capacity utilization for inflation to take hold. Bank reserves have little effect on it. For proof one only need to see the affect QE has had. The money supply increases not on base money, but on consumer demand and producer input prices. The latter finds it difficult to find buyers if demand for credit is low. Government spending more than it taxes leaves net financial assets (including cash) for consumption.
@RoobieRhoo Ah, no. Just because QE does not immediately result in inflation (as it is often misdefined) when confidence has been lost in the banking system and the impact is significantly delayed demonstrablly proves nothing of the kind. Any and all increases in cash or near-cash relative to real wealth is, in and of itself, inflationary and devalues the money stock. That increase in the money supply IS the original definition of inflation.
Is Krugman an idiot? Using his logic, why wait around for the next earthquake or hurricane? Just send bulldozers up the east coast and destroy everything. We'll all be rich since we'll have to rebuild everything! Then we'll start on the west coast. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
To homogenize all wealth let's just say that all wealth is measured in houses. If one burns down and 100 new houses were to be built tomorrow, then one person would be out of a house because only 99 new houses would exist tomorrow. The government creates jobs with the money they receive of course, but they make it out to be that their jobs are special somehow. And the government is a monopoly so they are far more likely to produce as much per dollar as a private company. Of course not by much...
@MacabreManifesto ...because, contrary to popular belief, we live in a corporatized market, meaning that business's can get upper hands on small businesses because of their ability to buy politicians and regulators. It is far more easy to get a drug through the FDA, for instance, if you are a big company, than a small company, thus, the drugs in the market are made by a handful of giant corporations, thus they can charge monopoly prices for these drugs.
A natural disaster is NOT comparable to building roads!
A disaster destroys property that has cost people lifetimes of hard work. It would require a redoubling of those efforts to recreate what was lost.
Building roads does not require the destruction of property. It uses money that might otherwise be left sitting in a CEO's bank account to the use of the public, creating jobs for those who are actually building and servicing the roads.
And absolutely no mention of our wasteful defense budget! Cut the fucking military budget and we'll see unemployment skyrocket. Is John Stossell really this naive?
Wait, what? I think you failed to understand what the broken window fallacy actually means. Cut the american military budget and you will not only see lowered unemployment, but also higher living standards.
Where will all of those people who lived off of the govt dole for so long (people employed by the military) work? The military is the biggest "make work" welfare program out there. Oh and do you think all of those people would want their little cushy jobs gone? Wow, if I worked for a government branch that practically has no oversight, an unlimited budget and manufactured public support, which guaranteed me a job for life, I wouldn't want that taken away.
If taxing and redistributing wealth is such a surefire way of achieving the highest multiplier effect on capital, then it should be the case that it will always lead to huge increases in profit for everyone (though it hasn't). I propose that once that redistributed amount has multiplied many times over (as we are assured it will) and enriched the lives of all, the people who had higher percentages of their money forcibly taken should be repaid at least their initial coerced contribution.
Here's the problem I have with stossel's argument: Savings rates are a lot lower for the poor, such as those who would work as the glass repairmen in the analogy, than the rich shopkeeper. Taxing and redistributing the wealth (and the ensuing spending) has a higher multiplier effect than tax cuts.
@Trimbler00 But when the "rich" shopkeeper makes profits, what does he do? He reinvests. He expands. His new locations and stores provide jobs to those who apply for them.
@breakfastdaynight Yes, there is economic stimulus that occurs by letting the shopkeeper keep his profits, unless he keeps it all under his mattress. But a multitude of econometric studies have found that the multiplier effect (bang for the buck measure of economic stimulus) is highest for food stamps (distribution of wealth) and lowest for tax cuts.
I guess I'll repeat. Having a real or imagined better use for someone else's money does not entitle you to take their money.
There are also a multitude of studies and economic reasonings that refute the studies you're talking about. So that leaves us where? Let's just put everyone on food stamps I guess. Just Imagine what the multiplier would be with everyone in our nation receiving free food. Heck, why stop there. Why not make it so everyone gets everything for free?
The fundamental principle is that you don't take other people's stuff. Go about your business and stay out of the business of others. If a crime occurs, feel free to report it to the proper authorities, but don't arbitrarily punish millions of people for the real and perceived crimes of a few in order to bring about your "social vengeance."
There is no conclusive evidence that taxing and redistributing wealth has a higher multiplier effect than tax cuts.
You are forgetting two other things. First, redistributing wealth is nothing more than theft. You may be able to argue that it may be legal, but you can't argue that it isn't theft. Second, the money that "rich" shopkeeper saves instead of spending does not sit idle in a bank. It is loaned out and invested in true investments, not "government investments."
I'm against redistributive taxation, plain and simple. Redistribution of wealth from one group to another arbitrarily punishes one group in order to benefit another. It is fundamentally wrong. And by fundamental, I mean a 5 year old understands the concept. Any rational human being understands the concept and only by inventing a subjective loophole can anyone claim that taking one person's property by force in order to give it to another is the right thing to do.
@leegeorgeton Progressive taxes do not "punish one group" to benefit another. Having a better educated workforce and infrastructure that supports commerce provide benefits to commerce and wealth creation. Social safety nets reduce crime, and support productivity. Doing business costs less overall.
The greatest beneficiaries of government spending enjoy the greatest return in wealth. Progressive taxes charge those who get the most back. The wealthy get the most and should pay back accordingly.
We, as Americans, have freely agreed to be governed in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. I want a government that acts in accordance with the Constitution, not one that continually, endlessly finds new ways to empower itself beyond the Constitutional constraints it has sworn to protect and observe.
My only question: which businesses or private individuals create public goods? If you think a road or maybe a currency is a broken window... shouldn't you try to get rid of those?
"My only question: which businesses or private individuals create public goods? If you think a road or maybe a currency is a broken window... shouldn't you try to get rid of those?"
Listening to the last 20 seconds of the video answers this question.
It is always incredible to me that the so-called intellectuals think that the economy is based around the circulation of currency. If it were true that all money is based on debt to create currency as JMK suggested, wouldn't it make sense for the Obama administration to allow the lending of a KAZZILLION dollars? Then everyone would have so much money to spend on things that everybody would have work making all those things!!!
Stossel's discussion of the breaking-windows-fallacy and also the GM bail out which led to destroying "clunkers" reminds me of the scene in Fifth Element, Gary' Oldman's evil character explaining the benefits of destruction to the priest, Ian Holms.
REAL CHANGE is IMPOSSIBLE as long as the Fed, Fiat Debt-Curreny and Fractional Reserve Banking exists.
The Fed gives corrupt crony politicians the power to borrow, debase & spend to buy “support” from Special Interest Groups, Too Big to Fail Corporations, the Military-Industrial Complex & Wall Street Cartels.
Central Banking = Political Bribery & Cronyism!
Watch: Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve" here on YouTube.
Wouldn't a major flaw in this be unless we are taxed more because of it we still lose the money in normal tax? I mean we have sale tax in MA and a % of that is used on job creation. Now that tax regardless of if they use a % to create jobs it will still be used on something else. The only difference is instead of it going to a business that might or might not create jobs it now is at a 100% chance to increase jobs. Again this is true and correct but there are points that bypass it is my point.
But creating jobs when there's no need for them is exactly what this clip argues against. The government is basically paying people to replace the window even if it's not broken.
If you instead got lower sales tax, you and everyone else would decide what to spend the money on, and in this way it would go to something that's needed, atleast by one person.
@Xaanin No cause the tax hasn't gone up to pay for this at all for the average man or woman. Actually i looked more into this and it is completely false. We aren't creating jobs that aren't needed. Repairs to public roads are needed or are you saying we should let the crumble. It's stuff like that which a huge portion of the money is going too. Also this is 100% job creation while paying at a business is not. This is a fallacy after you take some time and research to look into it.
@Shydrow - If you privatize these things, then there's no need for the theft of dollars to fund them. Their funding then is derived from voluntary transactions. There's no overhead from high-paid bureaucrats and their massive pensions. Your view subtracts wealth from the system, and destroys jobs by taking money out of the overall economy. Then you put it in with a substantial portion missing. This is downright illogical. Business is far more effective with money than government.
@Slipknotyk06 No but i am pretty sure i made my point about how if you give money to businesses they are not guaranteed to hire or expand. We already have seen in this country when you let the business do what it wants they cut corners to make things cheaper and to put more money into the heads of the companies pockets. The government we can keep tabs on it is chosen by the people. A private business are not and can get away with pretty nasty stuff as we have seen with the banks.
@Shydrow - Please don't try to argue that cheap products are somehow damaging to the economy. Cheap products increase buying power, and aid in holding inflation in check. Savings and investment are the drivers of an economy, not spending. If you want to see a hiring spree, you back off regulation on small business, and decrease their tax burden. Small business accounts for 75% of all new jobs.
@Slipknotyk06 Err alright i don't recall at all bringing up cheap products at all or small businesses so I'm pretty sure you didn't read what i said. I agree that small businesses should pay less taxes and be given more way on regulations cause they are not going to be the ones that fuck people over cause their goals are to stay in business and make some money but they take heavy hits when they piss off consumers unlike big businesses. Next time you may wanna read it carefully though.
@Shydrow - You asserted that American companies cut corners to make cheap products. Apparently you didn't read your own comment.
Big businesses do also take a big hit when they upset consumers on the same scale. How many other businesses want their market share? When is the time to gain market share? You gain market share most rapidly when your competition struggles.
You just don't understand how these things work, which is typical of someone attacking business.
@Slipknotyk06 No you seem to not understand what i am saying and this is getting off topic to what i think about businesses. I was talking about big ones and no they don't otherwise BP would be bankrupt by now. To put this in perspective this fallacy is a fallacy itself. Jobs have been created with the government bailout the only issue is now some banks are still being dicks and refusing to help those out and imposing big expenses and taking risks. Also proving me wrong does not prove you right.
@Shydrow - Are you calling the $20 billion claims fund and the fact they're facing a $200 billion lawsuit a SMALL hit!?
Jobs were not created through the corporatist bailouts. Banks are forced to sit on those funds because they know that they aren't REAL LOANABLE FUNDS! Someday the Government is going to come for what is theirs, and when they do, are the banks going to risk insolvency to make a buck today? HELL NO! The bailouts were a miserable failure.
@Shydrow If you can count the number of jobs created by the bail out on one hand, the bail out is a failure. Secondly, any jobs created by the bail outs were temporary, not permanent. (Why were they temporary? Because the job was either intended to be temporary or the entity doing the hiring would not be able to afford the new employee the next year.) Thirdly, the cost per job in bail out money was absurdly disproportionate to the wage earned by the person hired, thus a net loss.
@Shydrow The problem with your argument is that jobs do not necessarily = economic benefit. That's the whole point of this video, and if you watched it all you sure as hell didn't understand it.
Dongoe is entirely correct. Keynes was shallow and short sighted. The "aggregate" is just an incorrect view. Hazlett's "Economics is one Lesson" is absolutely brilliant. I love it when he explains "THE LESSON". Simply brilliant. Of course Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" is NOT to be missed. Austrian economics is the truth.
The jobs that the government creates are usually government jobs, which are more of a tax burden on the public. Bigger government hurts the economy and those who are working hard to pay their taxes..
@redw0lf24 Obama will always favor businesses that hire union workers. That's where the spendulous money went, of that part that was distributed for jobs.
@redw0lf24 Windows are broken. We empower government to pool our resources to find and repair the broken ones, and to restrain the vandals to prevent more destruction. Continuing the analogy, the people in crystal palaces benefit more than those in windowless shanties and they are charged accordingly.
OBAMA knows what glasses to break - because Obama thinks he is a better person than you, & you are too stupid & dumb to decide for yourself. OBAMA thinks he knows better than the people.
The worst thing is that when that employment is taken out of any profit seeking activity, it is remunerated, those employees buy goods and services, yet they may be of net detriment to aggregate production since the government is not employing them according to profit but public subsidy. Thus goods and services decumulate as some take far more than they contribute and as private sector businesses can't afford labour that should be clearing not propped up by the Trade Union of govt.
1:59. Umm. Why not? Of course there would be a net increase in jobs. They might not be the best paying jobs, but if your house gets destroyed, you've just made jobs for about 100 people God I'm tired of this selfish type of thinking. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the government should be making decisions for us, but when people talk about this theory like stossel is they always talk about it in a selfish way. I didn't get to spend the money on what I wanted! Cry me a river.
@bweazel Have you ever really studied Economics? Economics is set around the principle of self-interest. No need to place a (negative) value judgment on self-interest by calling it selfish.
It's not a value judgement. Doing things in your own self interest is selfish. You're the one putting a negative tone to it. Also, no need to capitalize economics. It's just a theory. What do you mean by "studied"? If you mean have I paid a university to sit a TA in front of me for two years and have a minor in economics? Yes. Does that help at all? Nope. It's a study of human behavior. Stop trying to make a subjective science seem like it has any form. It's a philosophical science. Try thinking
@spee10, it would be beneficial to everyone if we stopped associating "selfishness" with negativity. Every positive action one does can be viewed in a selfish way because people necessarily do these things to survive and be happy. There is nothing wrong with them, and an economy based on self interest. Thus selfishness is one of the essences of capitalism.
Well you can't say that with any certainty. Explain to me why the destruction of my house would cause 100 jobs to suddenly vanish. It wouldn't. It would cause my equity to suddenly vanish, the guys who built it, would have gotten the money for building it long ago, spent that money and increased the economy then, when the house was initially built. Now it falls to me to keep the house in working order, keep it from burning down, or whose loss is it? Yours or mine? Right, mine. And no one else's
@bweazel It does not cause existing jobs to disappear, it prevents jobs from coming into existence. Now, instead of you spending your money on a suit, dinner out, or a new computer, you've spent it on the house. No net gain, but not zero-sum either. Hiring those people uses resources that could be used elsewhere. If your house burns down, we have to waste resources fixing it. If it didn't burn down, those resources could be used towards more productive ends. Then we'd have more wealth overall.
I fully realize that. The reply was to someone below who said it did infact destroy jobs. It doesn't. It destroys your personal property, which again, is of no loss to any other individual but yourself.
Stop saying 'you'. This isn't about the individual. This is about the economy. So please, you guys need to pick a topic, and stay on it. This has nothing at all to do with the individual. The economy doesn't care where the jobs are, just that there are jobs.
You're the only one speaking fallacies, friend. You are not being realistic in the least bit. The economy doesn't work that way. In a fairy tale world, yes, that's the way it would work. We'd all work for each other, and when one of us lost, we all would. However, our economy and world does not work that way. And you know it doesn't.
Haha, now you're just reaching. So anytime anyone uses any commodity, to you it's bad by your analogy there, right? Or just when people fuck up?
Then people eating beef would affect you, people painting their houses would affect you. EVERYTHING in this world that is turned from a raw good into something that is purchased, to you, is a negative now. Right? Help me understand your analogy, or just admit you were reaching for something that wasn't there.
You have a noble idea. We all should strive to work for one another. But as of now, we don't, which would not make this a fallacy, but a fact. Your pain helps others in this economy.
Waaaa! we have highways instead of cow trod paths! waaaa! We have a 99% litercy rate: statist indoctrination! Waaaa, we can't sell this utopian nonsense to people who have solid view of history. waaaaaaa! we're libertarians, how dare you want the United States of America, WE DEMAND THE UnUnited NonStates of America! That's what the non-founding fathers and non-revolutionary war has justly wrought! not!
shadownor 1 week ago
@shadownor You are correct that the government has a hand in funding all of these programs. But you assume something huge. You assume that all these things could not be provided without the government. If we follow your logic, before government, no one build any roads, or built any schools, no one learned anything, nothing worth anything could ever be built by anyone other than the government. This assumption is just wrong.
Butmunch666 3 days ago
@Butmunch666 That doesn't make any sense to me. You seem to have the syntax of logic, but not quite the gist of it. The fact is that because the gov't is the educator of last resort (educating most of us), in no way presupposes that ONLY the gov't can educate. But because of the gov't being the educator of last resort, we have a 99% literacy rate. And history offers no examples of that rate otherwise.
shadownor 3 days ago
Comment removed
shadownor 1 week ago
A 99% literacy rate IS NOT a broken window!
Fire Departments are NOT broken windows!
Police Departments are NOT broken windows!
Taxes for 'providing for the common defense" and "promoting the general welfare" are AMERICAN.
Go to Somalia where there is no gov't, nor gov't security nor infrastructure. Show me how you'll prosper there without infrastructure. No buildings codes! They must be free, right?
Go to Somalia, just to show the rest of us 'statist' that your nonsense works? ???
shadownor 1 week ago
Libertarianism wants to 'return' America to a glory that never once existed. They claim that they want to 'restore' the Constitution, but in fact the want to ignore the whole process of of the LACK of gov't powers, from the Articles of Confederation, that led us to said Constitution.
The Articles of Confederation envisioned such a weak gov't that it was untenable to the veterans, the people and the propitious esteem of other (OMG STATIST) nation states.
shadownor 1 week ago
@shadownor
Actually what we want to do is limit the state so that we can preserve the freedom of the people. Libertarianism is based on voluntary interactions among individuals with respect to natural human rights and the enforcement of contracts. This is the basic premise but we realize that the world isnt perfect and never will be, so limited government would be one that protects the rights of individuals and enforces voluntary contracts.
IxenBlaze 1 week ago
@IxenBlaze Libertarianism has the burden of proof; it claims that it is the intent of the founding fathers, but actual the founding fathers were all statist (imagined term.) Libertarianism MUST prove how little gov't can preserve a people of 300 million (US) without Utopian dogma. What are the models, where is the proof? Why does this modern unproven cult presuppose that everyone else must answer its brown shirts?
shadownor 1 week ago
@IxenBlaze "Actually what we want to do is limit the state so that we can preserve the freedom of the people." The state is merely the current object of unchecked and grossly aggregated private powers, due to discredited nonsense such as yours.
shadownor 1 week ago
I am so sick of 'Broken Windows Fallacy' referred to as a fallacy. The fallacy is with the people who propose it and think bridges, schools and infrastructure as 'theft' Get your heads out of your asses and breathe for a while.
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the COMMON DEFENSE and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States
shadownor 1 week ago
@shadownor
I would suggest the same for you as your not even applying the logic behind the story. I would suggest reading some works by Bastiat before ranting and raving as the fallacy is still being repeated today by pundits trying to find some good out of destruction to make themselves feel better.
IxenBlaze 1 week ago
@IxenBlaze Bridge != destruction
shadownor 1 week ago
@shadownor
Dude.... When you try to put words in my mouth, your not even worth arguing with....
IxenBlaze 1 week ago
I disagree, Government spending during a recession does not help at all, and may make things worse. A quick study of recessions in the major nations since the end of WW2 shows that those with the most Keynesian spending had the longest recovery times.
knearhood8 2 weeks ago
disagree with? Clearly you agree with Stossel.
Xzilalnx2 1 week ago
@knearhood8 I doubt that's true, you're not doubt correlating US and allied debts with the persons that Allied nations rebuild.
shadownor 1 week ago
This video looks to be 15 years old which is probably the last time an opinion like this was allowed on network TV.
o5iiawah 1 month ago
@o5iiawah, then if this video is 15 years old in logic, maybe you should get some venture capital and create the Libertarian Stupid Nonsense Channel.... If you're right, you'll make a mint!
shadownor 1 month ago
If you dont like bridges and highways, you should move to another country. America doesn't need this selfish crap, and infrastructure has ALWAYS been an American standard. Please move to Somalia, there is hardly any regulation there... so Somalia must be prosperous! Right?
shadownor 1 month ago
@shadownor Idiot, the argument isn't anti road or bridge it is against their construction as though it creates jobs.
o5iiawah 1 month ago
@o5iiawah Ya! Let's increase corporate power on elections! Let's reduce the filthy power of 'We the People'. Let's call infrastructure socialism; and democracy communism. Just crouch down and lick the corporate hand that feeds you. Just wear the sneakers and watch the sitcoms.
shadownor 1 month ago
@shadownor "we the people" is the problem. Government does things in the name of the arbitrary people, ignoring the liberty of the Person. You just proved my point. No administration is more in bed with the newsmedia and wall street than Obama. GE controls NBC. GE makes a 9BN profit and gets money back from the taxpayer. Goldman Sachs is a huge contributor to Obama. You want to take on crony capitalism, it starts at the white house.
o5iiawah 1 month ago
@o5iiawah thanks for not calling me an idiot. I'm not an Obama fan, and I don't like what he does. I want money out of politics completely, and in my opinion the source of this problem started with the Republicans?
gov't has a role in breaking up monopolies. I think that gov't has a role in oversight of the economy.
I believe article 1, section 8 of the constitution: that congress shall provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare is a general clause for good reason.
shadownor 1 month ago
@shadownor
Eh to comment on government breakup of monopolies, I think your setting yourself up for dissappointment in that venue. Politicians have a lot of balls critisizing anyone for creating monopolies.
IxenBlaze 1 month ago
@IxenBlaze Money in politics has produced politicians that work for the wealthy only, thus Saint Reagan stopped enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust act, and then the Gramm–Leach–Bliley-Clinton Act assured that banks could grow up to the sun. This is how we got here, gov't is supposed to work for the people... agree with you that it does not at the present.
shadownor 1 month ago
@shadownor
Are you serious? It has nothing to do with Saint Reagan and everything to do with how the government has created monopolies, cartels, and oligopolies all the while claiming to be against monopolies. The fed is the biggest cartel of banks this nation has ever had, not to mention government crackdown of competition in the mailing industry in the early days as well as squashing bread makers who were making affordable bread. The government has always been the biggest hypocrite on this
IxenBlaze 1 week ago
@IxenBlaze touché, ::cough:: "the fed" ::cough cough::
Xzilalnx2 1 week ago
@o5iiawah 'Arbitrary people?' Shame! Conservatives think that the rich people are fixed and the people interchangeable; liberals think that the people are fixed and the barons interchangeable. Demand-side economics is the correct economics, that is why the 'filthy' people always do better under democratic lawmaking. SEVENTY percent of our economy is consumer spending, so if you preserve the middle-class, you preserve the economy.. Demand is prior and superior to supply.
shadownor 1 week ago
@shadownor lol
Xzilalnx2 1 week ago
@shadownor
To correct the others, the fallacy doesnt have much to do with creating and building up something. The fallacy comes into play when someone says that we are all the more wealthy when something is destroyed because someone is employed to fix it up. Doesnt have much to do with building bridges and highways per se.
IxenBlaze 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fallacy is how this 'fallacy' is commonly framed: it presupposes that paying for bridges, traffic lights and highways are malicious vandalisms to civilization. This comes under the 'if you like infrastructure then you are a statist' fallacy.
I believe Hamilton's Report on Manufactures (1791) roundly trounces the Utopian notion that we could have made it this far with a gov't seated in a building no larger than a grass hut. We set up education and cut canals as far back as then.
shadownor 1 month ago
Aaaah good man good man. Advancing the libertarian cause ;)
Now that Friedman, Hayek and Von Mises are dead only this man, Peter Schiff and of course, Ron Paul remain.
But they remain, and they're not going anywhere.
LIBERTY LIVES
Spjungen 2 months ago
1. If you don't break the window first, only the improvement will be the true result of the action, except spendings in the military which can never be an improvement for society in the first place.
2. There is no guarantee that spending will add to employment. Its probable that spending will add to the company bosses already preposterous salury and bonuses though. It can also be spent to make the company more efficient by replacing people with automatised production, which adds to unemployment.
BrytaPlanka 3 months ago
@BrytaPlanka "It can also be spent to make the company more efficient by replacing people with automatised production, which adds to unemployment."
Yep, used to be over 80% of the population was employed in agriculture but thanks to automation it now around 10%. No wonder we have such an unemployment problem, all those people being replaced with machines.
studentofsmith 2 months ago 2
@studentofsmith
Actually it enables people to become doctors, machinists, engineers, programmers, etc.
IxenBlaze 1 month ago
@IxenBlaze My comment was a sarcastic response to the often expressed concern that automation is taking over manufacturing jobs. I was pointing out that we have been down this road before with argiculture and that the result was a shift in employment to more productive work and an increase in our standard of living.
studentofsmith 1 month ago
@studentofsmith
Ahh bugger, my sarcasm radar is broken again :\.
IxenBlaze 1 month ago
@BrytaPlanka
2. The unemployment resulting from technological improvements are mostly temporary which people will have to find some skills that allow them to compensate. Technological advances also allow people to move onto higher order jobs because of increases in productivity allow people to provide more and to fulfill more economic needs which then enables a more advanced division of labor because not everyone needs to work as hard to provide for basic needs.
IxenBlaze 1 month ago
@IxenBlaze Temporary? No. Once replaced, the worker is not getting that job back. Most companies have no interest in our basic needs, they are inventing other needs for us on the expense of the environment. Companies increased productivity due to automatisation does not allow the unemployed worker to provide for his needs. Our economy system is silly since it wants everyone to work even though its not needed, and at the same time reward companies for getting rid of employment costs for profit.
BrytaPlanka 1 month ago
@BrytaPlanka
Who decides what is needed and wanted? There is really no universal declaration of what every human being wants. Automation does allow for people to provide more of what they need by making it possible to produce more at a lower price for the consumer. The company doesnt determine what we want, only the individual consumer determines what he or she wants which is in itself a subjective evaluation. Your premises seem to be based on alot of assumptions that just arent real.
IxenBlaze 1 month ago
@IxenBlaze Who decides what is needed and wanted? It's the companies that decides what we have to choose from. It's the politicians that decide the rules and laws that will change the premiss for how the companies will act to be successful, and we both know what politicians are like. Currently, as cheap production as possible for as high sale price to customer as possible is what our idiotic economic system rewards. Both the people, animals and the environment will loose if we follow this route.
BrytaPlanka 1 month ago
@BrytaPlanka
Eh? I dont even follow your premise because it makes no sense... From an economic standpoint, the companies dont decide what we get to choose from as they are competing for our business because they want our money and the only way to do that in this society is to trade something with us and in order to do that, they must produce more stuff that consumers want at a lower price to satisfy more consumers. In essence consumers ultimately decide what they want to or dont want to buy.
IxenBlaze 1 week ago
@IxenBlaze Sure they do. For example, the world population have asked for a great service from the big movie companies for viewing movies and series. A service that can compete with filesharing in a serious way, kind of like Steam practicly eliminated filesharing for PC games and Spotify replaced music filesharing, but the movie companies simply don't want to do that, so they don't. It's the companies that decide what we can choose to buy. We can never buy something they don't want to sell.
BrytaPlanka 1 week ago
@IxenBlaze Also, people want stuff that doesn't break when the warranty is out, but companies want to do stuff to break when the warranty is over because they know they will get a new customer then. Computers are a good example for this. Some hardware is made less durable on purpose. No customer wants that.
BrytaPlanka 1 week ago
Comment removed
BrytaPlanka 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IxenBlaze Commercials is another example of something consumers didn't ask for. The commercials in your physical mailbox, your email, and pretty much everywhere in the city is not asked for by the consumers. It's forced upon us and it effects the choices we make whether we want it or not.
BrytaPlanka 1 week ago
@IxenBlaze To clarify what I meant with the comment before your reply... If the politicians make a very high environmental tax for pollution and a reward for not polluting, the companies will adapt to that. If the state use money to build and strengthen important infrastructure, that place will be a better and more reliable place for setting up and running a business. John Stossel ignores the infrastructure improvements and throw rocks instead. Governments usually don't throw rocks on windows.
BrytaPlanka 1 week ago
@IxenBlaze +1
Xzilalnx2 1 week ago
Another simpleton drivel by our media resident Libertarian, John "mustache" Stossel.
He sets up the premise in such a way that he can mold it into a fallacy. If he is right, then WWII spending should have gotten us into a whole lot of trouble for at least the following 3 decades. But it didn't. Why? Because the various economical parameters were in favor of government spending at the time
So, it is not about spending or not spending, but rather it depends on the economical circumstances.
ninuxy 4 months ago
He also talks about "broken window" as if government's action is about going around, blowing things up just to fix them. No, government's spending, in this case, is about fixing things that are in state of deterioration, i.e. infrastructure like highway or what not.
ninuxy 4 months ago
@ninuxy The previous "stimulus" bill earmarked plenty of money to fix a certain bridge. Now Obama makes a campaign stop to push for his new "jobs" bill (more "stimulus") at a bridge that's not properly maintained, saying the bill needs to be passed or else... BUT IT'S THE SAME BRIDGE. Government wastes money, and the larger the government, the more it wastes. Period.
canofsand 4 months ago
@ninuxy
What do you call going to war and building up nations in the aftermath? Governments do that all the time. They also tear things down in order to rebuild em right at home as well. Id suggest watching the incredible bread machine documentary.
IxenBlaze 1 month ago
@ninuxy Stossel didn't invent the broken window fallacy. It's a well-established, highly supported bit of reasoning. Your criticisms and petty insults only expose yourself as ignorant and closed-minded. As for WW2, you've got it exactly backwards, as can be seen by the fact that your ilk of that day were complaining about government spending going down after the war, saying the economy would crash so govt spending had to continue at high levels - which of course did not bear out.
canofsand 4 months ago
@canofsand Your moronic responses clearly brand you a neophyte who deserves a public whooping.
Attributing a fallacy erroneously to a policy is not a valid criticism. I guess you missed that sonic boom that just passed over your head again.
Nobody was suggesting the level of spending should have been kept after WWII. Your lame-brain strawman was noted.
If a budget was not appropriated to "a" bridge, then how does a new targeted bill invalidate the premise of spending money to fix it?
ninuxy 4 months ago
@ninuxy
Most keynsian economists were afraid that unemployment would shoot back up following the end of the war so they were warning about that. They were wrong in assuming unemployment would shoot up and stay that way following the war.
IxenBlaze 1 month ago
@IxenBlaze I like how you insulate your premise with "stay that way" clause.
After WWII, the unemployment did shot up sharply. Go read the charts.
ninuxy 1 month ago
@ninuxy
Even without going into your current premise, your explaining in your own words something that contradicts your earlier assumption that nobody was suggesting to keep spending at WW II levels. The keynsian prescription is simplistic at best, government spending cures recessions and with that premise, the keynsians were afraid of the postwar unemployment and did suggest that we continue spending.
IxenBlaze 1 month ago
@IxenBlaze Government spending does not automatically cure recessions -- I did not make such statement an axiom, but rather used it to counter that in some cases, it does and mostly, it would at least stops the bleeding.
Different economical circumstances require different strategies. You cannot lump every event under the exact same scenario where economical parameters vary.
ninuxy 1 month ago
@ninuxy (1)A recession is pretty straight forward, & implies a specific set of required "parameters.(2) Don't we do all the lumping symbolically-- by titling periods of time, recession or prosperity? (3)If you stuff my gym-sock in a gun-wound it will surely "stop the bleeding", but I imagine it will have undesirable long term consequences.
Xzilalnx2 1 week ago
@Xzilalnx2 1) Tautological argument won't get you far in life. Taking words out of context, or failure in reading comprehension also follows the same suit.
2) Irrelevant to the reasons I made my comment which you poorly criticized.
3) Yes, bleeding to "death" also has a very short term consequence: death. How does mindless analogies working out for you?
ninuxy 1 week ago
@ninuxy TT?
Xzilalnx2 1 week ago
@Xzilalnx2 There is no crying on the Internet.
ninuxy 1 week ago
Comment removed
Xzilalnx2 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TT was a sarcastic response to a defensive tone. 1)Your oversimplification of my response could also be construed as tautological in nature 2)toucé. Youtube is not designed to be a robust forum of fully observable conversations. 3)"to death" was not in your original (talk about out of context) Analogies are just a way of conveying ideas; they are not themselves the ideas, or the supporting facts. If you do not get the idea the analogy attempted to convey that doesn't make it mindless.
Xzilalnx2 6 days ago
@ninuxy
Actually the broken window fallacy has been around much longer than John Stossel. The credit for this goes to the french economist Frederick Bastiat who completely destroyed the notion that breaking ***** and fixing it is a net gain for the economy and for employment. WW II was just that, breaking **** in order to fix it and drafting nearly the entire workforce into war while leaving everybody at home to suffer economic planning and harsh rationing because we were not producing(cont)
IxenBlaze 1 month ago
@IxenBlaze
We were not producing the things that consumers need because practically all production was geared towards warfare and capital/wealth destruction. WW II didnt get us out of the depression, the elimination of wage/price controls as well as a return to normal production of wealth and capital advancement along with workforce growth is what ended it.
IxenBlaze 1 month ago
SHUFFELIN SHUFFELIN!
iluvpoliticzz 5 months ago
The truth can be summed up at 2:04 - 2:20.
DONGOE 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Many people are wrong!!!
DONGOE 5 months ago
Great theory except no one is going around breaking things so we can fix them. There are things that are already broken, like bridges and roads, that need fixed and that's the business of government. So, yeah, the theory totally sucks.
jimbojim68 5 months ago
@jimbojim68 I don't think you understand the theory. The broken window theory has nothing to do with destroying things just to rebuild them it's about the unseen consequences of a situation. The original metaphor had a vandal who broke a window and a guy saying that this would boost the economy by FORCING the owner to fix it. but another guy corrected him by pointing out that the money would have likelyspent the money anyway and likely on something more worthwhile than maintance like technology.
666or999 4 months ago
@666or999 OK, well, they are saying the money spent on the stimulus were tax dollars that would have been spent by the people who were taxed. However, that is why we have a jobs crisis. Job creators are holding on to record wealth and not spending it. The stimulus is supposed to keep people working, keep businesses open and help create new industries with grants.
My problem with Stossel is that he is trying to frame the stimulus with Bastiat's parable of the broken window where it doesn't fit.
jimbojim68 4 months ago
@jimbojim68
Actually the reason why we had an economic crisis is because the capital structure of the economy during the housing boom was an illusion brought about by artificial credit. Holding onto money is just saving it for when an opportunity presents itself and when the distortion is cleared for more sound long term investments.
IxenBlaze 1 month ago
insurance companies and government has to apy for the clean up then insurance companies raise their rates
MaddDogg81 5 months ago
in Canda we're doing this bullshit too, just making busy work like"upgrading roads"
MaddDogg81 5 months ago
This is not John Stossel's theory. Frederic Bastiat first postulated it in the 19th century. History began long before any of us were around to see it on youtube.
jake44514 5 months ago
A teapot vs. the Interstate.........
Great Argument, Sossel. Really.
festdir 6 months ago
Durrr
NostalgicStone 6 months ago
The broken window fallacy is predicated on the idea the government borrows or taxes money to fund it's spending on broken windows. This crowds out private investment to fix the broken window, which by the way could have been better spent on a new suit. Agreed on that point. The truth is, the government has a printing press which means it has no need to finance it's spending. Thus crowding out is a myth and the broken window fallacy is reduced to an unfortunate criminal act. Taxes fund nothing.
RoobieRhoo 6 months ago
@RoobieRhoo Printing money for goverment spending increases the govements relative buying power. The rest of us therefore get smaller relative buying power. In other words, printing woks just like taxes, as it shifts buying power from the people to the goverment (or to the banks).
aekel66 5 months ago
@aekel66 You are correct. The government can crowd out goods and services for sale, but such spending in excess of capacity is wasteful and such aggregate demand should be left to the consumer. Still, taxes are simply a drain on the money supply and do not crowd out investment. Banks create money from thin air and can fund any credit worthy, economically feasible investment willing to pay the price of that credit.
RoobieRhoo 5 months ago
@RoobieRhoo Ah, no. The printing of money has the same effect as taxing or borrowing it because the money supply increases but the wealth level supporting it remains unchanged and the result is that savings lose value (inflation) and the fallacy still remains entirely true.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago in playlist John Stossel
@FletchforFreedom The key point is the money supply must increase and must stress capacity utilization for inflation to take hold. Bank reserves have little effect on it. For proof one only need to see the affect QE has had. The money supply increases not on base money, but on consumer demand and producer input prices. The latter finds it difficult to find buyers if demand for credit is low. Government spending more than it taxes leaves net financial assets (including cash) for consumption.
RoobieRhoo 5 months ago
@RoobieRhoo Ah, no. Just because QE does not immediately result in inflation (as it is often misdefined) when confidence has been lost in the banking system and the impact is significantly delayed demonstrablly proves nothing of the kind. Any and all increases in cash or near-cash relative to real wealth is, in and of itself, inflationary and devalues the money stock. That increase in the money supply IS the original definition of inflation.
FletchforFreedom 5 months ago
Now if only more and more commentators would follow cue!
Deed61957 6 months ago
Is Krugman an idiot? Using his logic, why wait around for the next earthquake or hurricane? Just send bulldozers up the east coast and destroy everything. We'll all be rich since we'll have to rebuild everything! Then we'll start on the west coast. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
EAKven 6 months ago
To homogenize all wealth let's just say that all wealth is measured in houses. If one burns down and 100 new houses were to be built tomorrow, then one person would be out of a house because only 99 new houses would exist tomorrow. The government creates jobs with the money they receive of course, but they make it out to be that their jobs are special somehow. And the government is a monopoly so they are far more likely to produce as much per dollar as a private company. Of course not by much...
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago
@MacabreManifesto ...because, contrary to popular belief, we live in a corporatized market, meaning that business's can get upper hands on small businesses because of their ability to buy politicians and regulators. It is far more easy to get a drug through the FDA, for instance, if you are a big company, than a small company, thus, the drugs in the market are made by a handful of giant corporations, thus they can charge monopoly prices for these drugs.
MacabreManifesto 7 months ago
Gang Bangers must be utilizing this reasoning when they go about breaking car windows, huh?
AlaskanSheilah 8 months ago
A natural disaster is NOT comparable to building roads!
A disaster destroys property that has cost people lifetimes of hard work. It would require a redoubling of those efforts to recreate what was lost.
Building roads does not require the destruction of property. It uses money that might otherwise be left sitting in a CEO's bank account to the use of the public, creating jobs for those who are actually building and servicing the roads.
juarezrt 8 months ago
And absolutely no mention of our wasteful defense budget! Cut the fucking military budget and we'll see unemployment skyrocket. Is John Stossell really this naive?
Roguemember 9 months ago
@Roguemember
Wait, what? I think you failed to understand what the broken window fallacy actually means. Cut the american military budget and you will not only see lowered unemployment, but also higher living standards.
flakjap 9 months ago
@flakjap
Where will all of those people who lived off of the govt dole for so long (people employed by the military) work? The military is the biggest "make work" welfare program out there. Oh and do you think all of those people would want their little cushy jobs gone? Wow, if I worked for a government branch that practically has no oversight, an unlimited budget and manufactured public support, which guaranteed me a job for life, I wouldn't want that taken away.
Roguemember 8 months ago
I wasn't really responding to the broken windows fallacy but rather John Stossell's avoidance of a certain sector of government spending.
Roguemember 8 months ago
If taxing and redistributing wealth is such a surefire way of achieving the highest multiplier effect on capital, then it should be the case that it will always lead to huge increases in profit for everyone (though it hasn't). I propose that once that redistributed amount has multiplied many times over (as we are assured it will) and enriched the lives of all, the people who had higher percentages of their money forcibly taken should be repaid at least their initial coerced contribution.
leegeorgeton 9 months ago
Here's the problem I have with stossel's argument: Savings rates are a lot lower for the poor, such as those who would work as the glass repairmen in the analogy, than the rich shopkeeper. Taxing and redistributing the wealth (and the ensuing spending) has a higher multiplier effect than tax cuts.
Trimbler00 10 months ago
@Trimbler00 But when the "rich" shopkeeper makes profits, what does he do? He reinvests. He expands. His new locations and stores provide jobs to those who apply for them.
breakfastdaynight 9 months ago
@breakfastdaynight Yes, there is economic stimulus that occurs by letting the shopkeeper keep his profits, unless he keeps it all under his mattress. But a multitude of econometric studies have found that the multiplier effect (bang for the buck measure of economic stimulus) is highest for food stamps (distribution of wealth) and lowest for tax cuts.
Trimbler00 9 months ago
@Trimbler00
I guess I'll repeat. Having a real or imagined better use for someone else's money does not entitle you to take their money.
There are also a multitude of studies and economic reasonings that refute the studies you're talking about. So that leaves us where? Let's just put everyone on food stamps I guess. Just Imagine what the multiplier would be with everyone in our nation receiving free food. Heck, why stop there. Why not make it so everyone gets everything for free?
leegeorgeton 9 months ago
@Trimbler00
The fundamental principle is that you don't take other people's stuff. Go about your business and stay out of the business of others. If a crime occurs, feel free to report it to the proper authorities, but don't arbitrarily punish millions of people for the real and perceived crimes of a few in order to bring about your "social vengeance."
leegeorgeton 9 months ago
@Trimbler00
There is no conclusive evidence that taxing and redistributing wealth has a higher multiplier effect than tax cuts.
You are forgetting two other things. First, redistributing wealth is nothing more than theft. You may be able to argue that it may be legal, but you can't argue that it isn't theft. Second, the money that "rich" shopkeeper saves instead of spending does not sit idle in a bank. It is loaned out and invested in true investments, not "government investments."
leegeorgeton 9 months ago
@Trimbler00
Having a real or imagined better use for someone else's money does not entitle you to take their money.
leegeorgeton 9 months ago
@leegeorgeton So you're against taxation entirely? No government?
Trimbler00 9 months ago
@Trimbler00
I'm against redistributive taxation, plain and simple. Redistribution of wealth from one group to another arbitrarily punishes one group in order to benefit another. It is fundamentally wrong. And by fundamental, I mean a 5 year old understands the concept. Any rational human being understands the concept and only by inventing a subjective loophole can anyone claim that taking one person's property by force in order to give it to another is the right thing to do.
leegeorgeton 9 months ago
@leegeorgeton Progressive taxes do not "punish one group" to benefit another. Having a better educated workforce and infrastructure that supports commerce provide benefits to commerce and wealth creation. Social safety nets reduce crime, and support productivity. Doing business costs less overall.
The greatest beneficiaries of government spending enjoy the greatest return in wealth. Progressive taxes charge those who get the most back. The wealthy get the most and should pay back accordingly.
HighInfoSource 8 months ago
@Trimbler00
We, as Americans, have freely agreed to be governed in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. I want a government that acts in accordance with the Constitution, not one that continually, endlessly finds new ways to empower itself beyond the Constitutional constraints it has sworn to protect and observe.
leegeorgeton 9 months ago
My only question: which businesses or private individuals create public goods? If you think a road or maybe a currency is a broken window... shouldn't you try to get rid of those?
kalchikc 11 months ago
Comment removed
leegeorgeton 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kalchikc
"My only question: which businesses or private individuals create public goods? If you think a road or maybe a currency is a broken window... shouldn't you try to get rid of those?"
Listening to the last 20 seconds of the video answers this question.
leegeorgeton 9 months ago
Stossel has a wicked fastball.
Chad9976 11 months ago
13 people don't understand economics :)
PrimaDonna814 11 months ago 3
@PrimaDonna814 I was one of them.
shadownor 1 month ago
I can't believe that someone is having to explain why destruction is bad.
TheDestroyerCrom 11 months ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
Choose a big beautiful woman as your partner naneedj.info
jennykopra 1 year ago
10 ppl sell windows to the govt, after giving their kids bricks
rsimpson69 1 year ago
It is always incredible to me that the so-called intellectuals think that the economy is based around the circulation of currency. If it were true that all money is based on debt to create currency as JMK suggested, wouldn't it make sense for the Obama administration to allow the lending of a KAZZILLION dollars? Then everyone would have so much money to spend on things that everybody would have work making all those things!!!
daveasch 1 year ago
Johns got a decent little arm there.
wohs145 1 year ago 2
Stossel's discussion of the breaking-windows-fallacy and also the GM bail out which led to destroying "clunkers" reminds me of the scene in Fifth Element, Gary' Oldman's evil character explaining the benefits of destruction to the priest, Ian Holms.
zippywebgenie 1 year ago
I love Stossel, but it's not his fallacy. It was first introduced by Frederic Bastiat in Essays on a Political Economy. Good read.
syghur 1 year ago
@syghur I love Bastiat
PrimaDonna814 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Statists are Statists!
REAL CHANGE is IMPOSSIBLE as long as the Fed, Fiat Debt-Curreny and Fractional Reserve Banking exists.
The Fed gives corrupt crony politicians the power to borrow, debase & spend to buy “support” from Special Interest Groups, Too Big to Fail Corporations, the Military-Industrial Complex & Wall Street Cartels.
Central Banking = Political Bribery & Cronyism!
Watch: Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve" here on YouTube.
Starve the Pit Vipers… END THE FED.
yakyakyak69 1 year ago
so he is the guy who broke my window
bustapunk101 1 year ago
what if the window is already broken? (crumbling infrastructure, schools) What if we use money from wars? (bring home the troops!)
ndyt 1 year ago
Wouldn't a major flaw in this be unless we are taxed more because of it we still lose the money in normal tax? I mean we have sale tax in MA and a % of that is used on job creation. Now that tax regardless of if they use a % to create jobs it will still be used on something else. The only difference is instead of it going to a business that might or might not create jobs it now is at a 100% chance to increase jobs. Again this is true and correct but there are points that bypass it is my point.
Shydrow 1 year ago
@Shydrow
But creating jobs when there's no need for them is exactly what this clip argues against. The government is basically paying people to replace the window even if it's not broken.
If you instead got lower sales tax, you and everyone else would decide what to spend the money on, and in this way it would go to something that's needed, atleast by one person.
Xaanin 1 year ago
@Xaanin No cause the tax hasn't gone up to pay for this at all for the average man or woman. Actually i looked more into this and it is completely false. We aren't creating jobs that aren't needed. Repairs to public roads are needed or are you saying we should let the crumble. It's stuff like that which a huge portion of the money is going too. Also this is 100% job creation while paying at a business is not. This is a fallacy after you take some time and research to look into it.
Shydrow 1 year ago
@Shydrow Almost every sentence that you wrote is full of fallacious, illogical thinking (or just downright factually incorrect).
"No cause the tax hasn't gone up to pay for this at all for the average man or woman."
"We aren't creating jobs that aren't needed."
"Repairs to public roads are needed or are you saying we should let the crumble."
"Also this is 100% job creation while paying at a business is not."
Did you even think about any of that? Jeez.
HeyItzMeDawg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HeyItzMeDawg Alright now that you have pointed out what i said would you like to add to the discussion or just sit their and keep repeating me.
Shydrow 1 year ago
@Shydrow - If you privatize these things, then there's no need for the theft of dollars to fund them. Their funding then is derived from voluntary transactions. There's no overhead from high-paid bureaucrats and their massive pensions. Your view subtracts wealth from the system, and destroys jobs by taking money out of the overall economy. Then you put it in with a substantial portion missing. This is downright illogical. Business is far more effective with money than government.
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@Slipknotyk06 No but i am pretty sure i made my point about how if you give money to businesses they are not guaranteed to hire or expand. We already have seen in this country when you let the business do what it wants they cut corners to make things cheaper and to put more money into the heads of the companies pockets. The government we can keep tabs on it is chosen by the people. A private business are not and can get away with pretty nasty stuff as we have seen with the banks.
Shydrow 1 year ago
@Shydrow - Please don't try to argue that cheap products are somehow damaging to the economy. Cheap products increase buying power, and aid in holding inflation in check. Savings and investment are the drivers of an economy, not spending. If you want to see a hiring spree, you back off regulation on small business, and decrease their tax burden. Small business accounts for 75% of all new jobs.
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@Slipknotyk06 Err alright i don't recall at all bringing up cheap products at all or small businesses so I'm pretty sure you didn't read what i said. I agree that small businesses should pay less taxes and be given more way on regulations cause they are not going to be the ones that fuck people over cause their goals are to stay in business and make some money but they take heavy hits when they piss off consumers unlike big businesses. Next time you may wanna read it carefully though.
Shydrow 1 year ago
@Shydrow - You asserted that American companies cut corners to make cheap products. Apparently you didn't read your own comment.
Big businesses do also take a big hit when they upset consumers on the same scale. How many other businesses want their market share? When is the time to gain market share? You gain market share most rapidly when your competition struggles.
You just don't understand how these things work, which is typical of someone attacking business.
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@Slipknotyk06 No you seem to not understand what i am saying and this is getting off topic to what i think about businesses. I was talking about big ones and no they don't otherwise BP would be bankrupt by now. To put this in perspective this fallacy is a fallacy itself. Jobs have been created with the government bailout the only issue is now some banks are still being dicks and refusing to help those out and imposing big expenses and taking risks. Also proving me wrong does not prove you right.
Shydrow 1 year ago
@Shydrow - Are you calling the $20 billion claims fund and the fact they're facing a $200 billion lawsuit a SMALL hit!?
Jobs were not created through the corporatist bailouts. Banks are forced to sit on those funds because they know that they aren't REAL LOANABLE FUNDS! Someday the Government is going to come for what is theirs, and when they do, are the banks going to risk insolvency to make a buck today? HELL NO! The bailouts were a miserable failure.
Slipknotyk06 1 year ago
@Shydrow If you can count the number of jobs created by the bail out on one hand, the bail out is a failure. Secondly, any jobs created by the bail outs were temporary, not permanent. (Why were they temporary? Because the job was either intended to be temporary or the entity doing the hiring would not be able to afford the new employee the next year.) Thirdly, the cost per job in bail out money was absurdly disproportionate to the wage earned by the person hired, thus a net loss.
zippywebgenie 1 year ago
@Shydrow The problem with your argument is that jobs do not necessarily = economic benefit. That's the whole point of this video, and if you watched it all you sure as hell didn't understand it.
ralliart2000 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Correction. As stated by Henry Hazlitt himself.
Unity0Is0Power 1 year ago
Correction. As stated by Hayek himself.
Unity0Is0Power 1 year ago
@fairman1952 True. Keynes was a brilliant mind as stated by Murray N. Rothbard himself. Smart and wise are however not the same.
Unity0Is0Power 1 year ago
As many great minds have said time and time again, "The truth is very seldom complex. A lie on the other hand, should cause you to question."
Unity0Is0Power 1 year ago
Dongoe is entirely correct. Keynes was shallow and short sighted. The "aggregate" is just an incorrect view. Hazlett's "Economics is one Lesson" is absolutely brilliant. I love it when he explains "THE LESSON". Simply brilliant. Of course Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" is NOT to be missed. Austrian economics is the truth.
fairman1952 1 year ago
The jobs that the government creates are usually government jobs, which are more of a tax burden on the public. Bigger government hurts the economy and those who are working hard to pay their taxes..
DONGOE 1 year ago
Stossel being gangster.
greenghost2008 1 year ago
The government decides which windows to break, so the government decides winners and losers..... this is very dangerous.
redw0lf24 1 year ago 40
@redw0lf24 Obama will always favor businesses that hire union workers. That's where the spendulous money went, of that part that was distributed for jobs.
zippywebgenie 1 year ago
@redw0lf24 Windows are broken. We empower government to pool our resources to find and repair the broken ones, and to restrain the vandals to prevent more destruction. Continuing the analogy, the people in crystal palaces benefit more than those in windowless shanties and they are charged accordingly.
HighInfoSource 8 months ago
OBAMA knows what glasses to break - because Obama thinks he is a better person than you, & you are too stupid & dumb to decide for yourself. OBAMA thinks he knows better than the people.
UCSDEngineerDoctor 8 months ago
Hazlett calls this "The lesson". Well spoken, sir.
fairman1952 1 year ago
lol the "multiplier effect", the second most persistent economic fallacy of all time.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi
The worst thing is that when that employment is taken out of any profit seeking activity, it is remunerated, those employees buy goods and services, yet they may be of net detriment to aggregate production since the government is not employing them according to profit but public subsidy. Thus goods and services decumulate as some take far more than they contribute and as private sector businesses can't afford labour that should be clearing not propped up by the Trade Union of govt.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
1:59. Umm. Why not? Of course there would be a net increase in jobs. They might not be the best paying jobs, but if your house gets destroyed, you've just made jobs for about 100 people God I'm tired of this selfish type of thinking. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the government should be making decisions for us, but when people talk about this theory like stossel is they always talk about it in a selfish way. I didn't get to spend the money on what I wanted! Cry me a river.
bweazel 1 year ago
@bweazel Have you ever really studied Economics? Economics is set around the principle of self-interest. No need to place a (negative) value judgment on self-interest by calling it selfish.
spee10 1 year ago
It's not a value judgement. Doing things in your own self interest is selfish. You're the one putting a negative tone to it. Also, no need to capitalize economics. It's just a theory. What do you mean by "studied"? If you mean have I paid a university to sit a TA in front of me for two years and have a minor in economics? Yes. Does that help at all? Nope. It's a study of human behavior. Stop trying to make a subjective science seem like it has any form. It's a philosophical science. Try thinking
bweazel 1 year ago
@spee10, it would be beneficial to everyone if we stopped associating "selfishness" with negativity. Every positive action one does can be viewed in a selfish way because people necessarily do these things to survive and be happy. There is nothing wrong with them, and an economy based on self interest. Thus selfishness is one of the essences of capitalism.
Greendogo 1 year ago
@bweazel There is no net increase in jobs because the money spent on house repairs can't be spent on other goods/services.
So if the destruction of your home creates 100 jobs, it also costs 100 jobs (more efficient, productive, and beneficial jobs)
djdral 1 year ago
Well you can't say that with any certainty. Explain to me why the destruction of my house would cause 100 jobs to suddenly vanish. It wouldn't. It would cause my equity to suddenly vanish, the guys who built it, would have gotten the money for building it long ago, spent that money and increased the economy then, when the house was initially built. Now it falls to me to keep the house in working order, keep it from burning down, or whose loss is it? Yours or mine? Right, mine. And no one else's
bweazel 1 year ago
@bweazel It does not cause existing jobs to disappear, it prevents jobs from coming into existence. Now, instead of you spending your money on a suit, dinner out, or a new computer, you've spent it on the house. No net gain, but not zero-sum either. Hiring those people uses resources that could be used elsewhere. If your house burns down, we have to waste resources fixing it. If it didn't burn down, those resources could be used towards more productive ends. Then we'd have more wealth overall.
djdral 1 year ago
I fully realize that. The reply was to someone below who said it did infact destroy jobs. It doesn't. It destroys your personal property, which again, is of no loss to any other individual but yourself.
Stop saying 'you'. This isn't about the individual. This is about the economy. So please, you guys need to pick a topic, and stay on it. This has nothing at all to do with the individual. The economy doesn't care where the jobs are, just that there are jobs.
bweazel 1 year ago
@bweazel This is another fallacy, which Hazlitt called the Myth of Full Employment.
I don't know what you mean when you say "the economy cares...."
The fact is, as a group of people, our goal is the production of goods and services to improve the quality of life, not to have full employment.
It DOES affect me if your house burns down, because it means you have to use up resources that I could have otherwise used.
djdral 1 year ago
You're the only one speaking fallacies, friend. You are not being realistic in the least bit. The economy doesn't work that way. In a fairy tale world, yes, that's the way it would work. We'd all work for each other, and when one of us lost, we all would. However, our economy and world does not work that way. And you know it doesn't.
Haha, now you're just reaching. So anytime anyone uses any commodity, to you it's bad by your analogy there, right? Or just when people fuck up?
bweazel 1 year ago
Then people eating beef would affect you, people painting their houses would affect you. EVERYTHING in this world that is turned from a raw good into something that is purchased, to you, is a negative now. Right? Help me understand your analogy, or just admit you were reaching for something that wasn't there.
You have a noble idea. We all should strive to work for one another. But as of now, we don't, which would not make this a fallacy, but a fact. Your pain helps others in this economy.
bweazel 1 year ago