Blogs and Stories
Fitting In at Fox
by Lloyd Grove
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Stephen Lovekin / Getty Images
As he debuts his prime-time show on Fox Business Network this week, John Stossel talks about his falling out with ABC, his Gordon Gekko fetish—and why Peter Jennings wouldn’t look at him.
When John Stossel announced in September that he was leaving ABC after 28 years and heading for Fox News, the obvious question was: What took him so long? The youthful-looking 62-year-old Princeton alum—who keeps fit by playing beach volleyball in Central Park with the likes of John McEnroe—had been co-anchoring the magazine show 20/20 with Barbara Walters. But if he was making more, he was enjoying it less. ABC’s press release announcing his departure was unusually candid, noting that the mustachioed Stossel “has engaged and occasionally enraged our audience with thought-provoking questions and analysis.”
“Peter felt he was upholding the objectivity of ABC and I was violating that, I was bad for ABC,” Stossel said.
He enraged not only the audience over the years, but also many at the network—notably the late Peter Jennings, who believed Stossel’s brand of libertarian advocacy journalism was a blot on the ABC escutcheon. Jennings refused even to look at him when they passed in the halls. “Peter felt he was upholding the objectivity of ABC and I was violating that, I was bad for ABC,” Stossel tells The Daily Beast in an exclusive interview.
Stossel’s contrarian career had put him increasingly at odds with the corporate powers that be, earning him the enmity of the liberal establishment, media watchdog organizations, and consumer protection groups. A free-market absolutist and Ayn Rand fan who is openly contemptuous of the notion that government must intervene from time to time to protect us from ourselves, Stossel found it difficult to get his work on ABC’s news programs. “I was on World News Tonight once, I was on Nightline maybe once. There was never an appetite for John Stossel on those programs,” he says. “What changed was, I had more passion about doing economics. And they had less, and suddenly there was Fox, which had more room.” In recent weeks, Stossel has been an increasingly important presence on various Fox News shows; this Thursday at 8 p.m., he launches his hour-long weekly prime-time program, Stossel, on the fledgling Fox Business Network. Following in the footsteps of Don Imus, he's the latest hire in Chief Executive Roger Ailes’ efforts to recruit star talent and pump up ratings. Stossel spoke with The Daily Beast’s Lloyd Grove.
Stossel. How did you come up with that name?
They just sprung it on me.
Tell me a little bit about what the show is going to be.
It will be one subject. The first subject will be maybe Atlas Shrugged or global warming—Atlas Shrugged because I think 50 years ago, Ayn Rand predicted today. It sort of sums up what I’m going to be reporting about.
Ayn Rand predicted what?
Big government, nice-sounding legislation like “The Preservation of Livelihood Law,” which mandated that Hank Rearden’s production must not be bigger than any other steel mill, to make it a level playing field. It’s silly.
Is that a new law passed by this Congress?
No, but it’s what Wesley Mouch, the evil bureaucrat in the book, passed. And what Tim Geithner and what Barney Frank might like to pass.
You left ABC, whose audience is many multiples of what the Fox Business Network is getting now. How do you feel about having a smaller audience?
Look, it’s a startup. It’s time in life, after 28 years at ABC, to do something new. People used to ask me: Why don’t you go on Fox, because you’d be happier there? And my answer was I’ve got 15 million people, and Fox has under a million. But when I left, 20/20 had maybe five or six million. Bill O’Reilly, including his reruns, is pretty close to that. So the difference is not so big anymore.
You expect to be happier here?
I’m already happier here. Because I’m free to do what I want to do. In the elevator, people say, “John Stossel, I’ve always loved your stuff, so glad you’re here.” That’s a nice feeling.
Obviously your reputation precedes you. How would you describe the show? More of what you had been doing at ABC News in a different kind of format?
Except I’d add the word “much”—“much” more of what I’d been doing.
One the reasons you left is you had these pieces in the can that ABC wasn’t putting on the air.
There was one in particular, where I had done an hour on Michael Moore’s Sicko, and “Sick in America,” we called it, about health care. This was before Obama, and I had all this great video of a lottery in Canada to get a doctor, lines in Britain, and how if you want quick care, you have to be a dog or a cat—good stuff that really addressed the current issue. I couldn’t get it on. I finally got on a little piece and I blogged about how some “Michael Jackson is still dead” story bumped me and I was pissed. Some of my blog readers said, “Yeah Stossel, he was hung by his own petard, your beloved free market!” I had to admit, yep, that’s the market—it’s parts I like, parts I don’t. ABC felt that’s what the audience wanted. So be it. But Fox has room for both. It’s 24 hours.
The late Peter Jennings was embarrassed by you and wouldn’t even look at you when you passed in the hall, and you'd been at ABC since 1981. Did it get increasingly difficult for you to thrive in that corporate environment?
That didn't change. I was on World News Tonight once, I was on Nightline maybe once. There was never an appetite for John Stossel on those programs. And Peter felt he was upholding the objectivity of ABC and I was violating that, I was bad for ABC. What changed was, I had more passion about doing economics. And they had less, and suddenly there was Fox, which had more room.
You described yourself as having had an epiphany when you were considering doing a consumer-protection piece about exploding plastic cigarette lighters. And you said this is ridiculous, that’s enough.
You’re really condensing it. But in my book Give Me a Break, there’s a chapter called “Epiphany,” which is also misleading because it makes it seem like it was ooph! And it was more gradual, it was seeing that all this regulation I was calling for didn’t make it better for consumers. But it took me years to see that.
That was the early 1990s, but before that you were a good Upper West Side liberal, right?
Yes, and a good Portland, Oregon, liberal before that. I was working at Channel 2 as a consumer reporter, and it’s true, the Bic lighter story was the start. There was the regulation business. We would send the television set to a bunch of places. Say you had a loose wire. Three places would say, “Oh yeah, we’ll take it in,” and they’d charge us $200. Twenty places would say, “you’ve got a loose wire, we’ll fix it.” And I would go back and confront the three. “Would you ever cheat people?” “Oh no, never.” “Oh yeah? Watch this!” And the politicians would call and say, “That was great TV, we’re going to fix it, we’re gonna license these people.” And people liked that—we license dogs, we license drivers, and intuitively, you think it’ll make it better.
Because I stayed on the beat, I saw that it didn’t. We did the story later and the same thing was happening. What was the Department of Consumer Affairs doing? They had big offices. Now, before you could be a TV repairman, you had to hire a lawyer to fill out forms to send in fees. It screwed poor people, an immigrant who wanted to open a business, because he wouldn’t know how to file these things. It raised prices for everybody, or they had to live in the underground. So I was seeing that on the one hand, and on the other hand, we were doing all these scare stories, and I started to think, we put equal hype on each. “Tonight on 20/20, The Daily Beast will kill you!” And some obviously were more dangerous than others.
So you are now a very strong believer in the free markets.
You betcha.
They’ve been working so well that a year ago in September, because of the relative absence of regulation, the markets just functioned perfectly, and required no government intervention. That was it, pretty much. Right, John?
Pretty much, except for some ridiculous assumptions in your question. But we haven't had a free market. We had Barney Frank pressuring people to lend to people who shouldn’t have been loaned to.
You’re talking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being asked to lend to people who didn’t have sufficient credit.
People who didn’t have a down payment. Banks pressured to lend to minorities even if they didn't have a typical credit history, because otherwise they were discriminating. And Fannie and Freddie were saying, don’t worry, we’ll buy up all these mortgages. And tons of regulation. Bush didn’t erase any regulation, he added more regulation than any president before him. But people act as if it’s a horrible crisis, and I say that is ridiculous! Because in 1982, where was the Dow Jones average? What is it, 11000 today? Where was it in 1982? It was at 800! So in 28 years, it’s gone from 80, to 8000 and above. Had that happened steadily, we’d be saying, aren’t free markets wonderful? What a wonderful boom period! But because we had a bubble caused partly by government, the Federal Reserve making money cheap, we had a boom and it popped. I don’t think that discredits capitalism. But look, we’re prosperous in America. It’s not because of government. The people who tried government regulation have lives which are miserable.
Do you still worship at the altar of Gordon Gekko?
I never worshipped at the altar of Gordon Gekko. I did do an ABC Special titled “Greed.” I argued that when markets are free, and when government does not collude with business, greed is useful. People acting in their own self-interest is the fuel for all the discovery, innovation, and prosperity that powers the world. Gordon Gekko is a lefty in sheep’s clothing. Sort of like George W. Bush.
Gordon Gekko describes a world the way a socialist bureaucrat sees it: Wealth is a static pie and rich people grab the biggest share. But that’s a child’s view of the way the world works. I make speeches arguing the opposite. Wealth is created. When entrepreneurs are free to compete, they grow the pie so that everyone’s share gets larger.
Goldman Sachs—doing God’s work? The bonuses don’t bother you?
They bother me because they got handouts from government. Otherwise no, they don’t bother me. They’re a little gross in some cases.
You have an aesthetic objection.
They in some cases haven’t added much to the economy, but most of their work is figuring out how to get rich and the way they do that is send capital to the businesses they think will grow best. By doing that, they help America. They fund the better businesses, the ones that are going to grow, which means employ more people and which means produce goods that people want. That’s good. I’m happy with Goldman Sachs.
And you didn’t like the government bailing out GM and Chrysler and telling them how to run their businesses?
No, it’s awful. A thousand restaurants close every month. They re-open, and that’s good for America. Nobody’s rescuing them. They employ people, too. If we let them go bankrupt, the factories don’t go away, the creative people don’t go away. They get employed more productively by others. I would say it’s disgusting what we did with GM and Chrysler. Though I own a Chrysler minivan. I bought a new one on the day they went bankrupt.
You’re a hardcore libertarian, down the line, right? Legalize drugs?
Absolutely—drugs, prostitution, steroids for athletes. If Major League Baseball wants to have a no-steroid rule, fine. But it’s none of Congress’ business. If we want to have a National Steroid League football games, and they're consenting adults, that’s fine. I’m happy if states legislate different limits, 18, 16, 21, different things, but certainly by 21, we should own our own bodies.
What’s your overall critique of the Democrats’ plan to overhaul health care? You think they're just lying when they say their health-care plan is deficit neutral?
“Lie” means you're doing it and you know it’s a lie. A lot of what they do is just wishful thinking and arrogance. It’s certainly a lie when you say we’re going to cover more people and we’re going to cover more stuff and we’re going to make it cost less.
And you also think the anti-smoking laws in New York are bad?
I love them. I don’t like the smell of smoke. But I think it’s the tyranny of the majority.
You wouldn’t mind going into a restaurant where people are smoking in a designated room and the fumes are wafting into your meal?
If that happened, I wouldn’t go back. But the poor smokers, can’t they have some bars, some restaurants? I think that’s oppression. And I’m surprised the smokers don’t protest. People just take it. Thomas Jefferson said it’s the natural progress of things for the government to grow. People just take it.
And your overall critique of Obama administration is what?
Arrogant expanders of government.
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
For more of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
YOUR FRIENDS
Joy Behar Was Right
Jeff Shesol is the author of Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court. He is also a founding partner of West Wing Writers, a speechwriting and strategy firm and the author of Mutual Contempt. From 1998 to 2001, Shesol served as a speechwriter to President Bill Clinton. A Rhodes Scholar, he holds degrees in history from Oxford and Brown universities. His comic strip, Thatch, appeared daily in more than 150 newspapers from 1994-1998.
Dragon Tattoo Star Narrowed to Final Four
Gina Piccalo spent a decade at the Los Angeles Times covering Hollywood. She's now a contributing writer for Los Angeles Magazine and her work has appeared in Elle, More and Emmy. She can be found at ginapiccalo.com.
A former editor of Men's Journal, Claire Martin has written for Outside, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times magazine.
Inside Chelsea's Wedding Party
Lynnley Browning is a frequent contributor to the business pages of The New York Times and is a former Moscow-based correspondent for Reuters, where she covered energy and commodities. She grew up in Tulsa, Okla., majored in Slavic Languages and Literatures at Princeton University, and is fluent in Russian. She lives in Hamden, Conn., with her son.
Father of the Bride
Rebecca Dana is a senior correspondent for The Daily Beast. A former editor and reporter for The Wall Street Journal, she has also written for The New York Times, The New York Observer, Rolling Stone, and Slate, among other publications.
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Al Gore's Weak Defense
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Texas Republican Who Hates Bush
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
jus1drun
life has some pretty rough edges and, understandably, many are motivated to use government as a tool to smooth them over. but as a result government grows. although ostensibly stossel reflects the ever independent american spirit that bridles at being harnessed by the government nets weaved by those sure they are protecting us, he arrived at his worldview less by proclivity and more by the practicality of weighing the effectiveness of government actions.
he's a boots on the ground kind of guy with an engaging delivery which makes him a near perfect commentator of the current single minded rush to government for solutions.
although i lean more toward being accepting of some government interference as unavoidable, my years in govt as a policy planner and budget director have provided me with experiences that incline me to appreciate stossel's evolution from typical liberal to libertarian.
Zelduh
Agreed.
It is really easy to become a Libertarian after you have become rich. (It's called self-preservation.)
MrGEAH
Funny. I became a libertarian when I was poor, and that philosophy helped make me rich.
When I was a liberal, I just sat around waiting for the government to help me and take care of me. What could go wrong?
sophia5
It has nothing to do with how much money he has.
It comes down to trusting someone like Stossel as an objective reporter.
When he reports, he is believable and sincere. Not a sellout to the left or right.
Same goes for ABC's investigative reporter Brian Ross.
Two reporters who actually believe in reporting the truth, as
opposed to biased Fox/MSNBC talking points.
felixw
It is easy to become a Democrat after you become a felon or a drug addict or a deadbeat. (It's called self-preservation.)
thankulord13
MrGeah
And you are still poor! I hate pretenders now get your liberterian butt down to the unemployment office.
MrGEAH
I hate to destroy your fantasy, thankulord13, because it's probably all you have to keep you going. However, the reality is that I may be a lot of things, but poor isn't one of them.
Greyfire
Interesting piece, the answers and questions seems a bit choppy and all over the place but i guess that has more to do with reporter than Stossel. The title is also bit misleading since very little of this interview deals with Stossel and Fox business.
rcksgl
Stossel would take a position and not care about facts. He almost ruined the career of the eye doctor who saved my dad's life because in a field test, the patient spent more time in the office and spent less time and spent the most money (like 20 bucks) to be with our eye doctor than nine others. And Stossel made that the point of the piece, and not the fact that of the ten doctors, my doc was the only one to correctly diagnose the problem, which untreated could cause blindness. It took our doc years to financially recover, and since everything Stossel said was true, there was no recourse.
MrGEAH
"Stossel would take a position and not care about facts...everything Stossel said was true, there was no recourse."
Whatever you say, rcksgl.
jon3425
Great piece. This article neatly spells out how ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN all filter and report the news to meet their social agenda all while claiming FOX presents skewed reporting.
roxsteady
Actually Jennings was right. This guy is trash. I watched his show maybe once some years back and he had this wrestler on and kept saying it was fake. Duh! Finally the wrestler slapped him so hard he lost some hearing in his ear. Good Times!
cigi63
roxsteady, agree...I moved off watching 20/20 years ago because of Stossel and his "opinions" of what he thought was newsworthy. NBC should have dumped his @$$ years ago. I watch Public TV on Friday nights now. Glad Fox picked him up...pretty soon they will have all the Far Right KnowNothings in one place! Stossel is an egoist and a legend in his OWN mind, no else's.
MysticSky
Are you certain that was John Stossel? For some reason I'm remembering it as Richard Belzer or something like that.
MrGEAH
Stossel got $425k for those slaps.
Roxsteady, sorry he ruined your fantasy that wrestling is real.
frankregan
62 is too old to still be quoting the absurd fictional characters of "Atlas Shrugged." Ann Rynd is for undergrads of 3rd rate colleges and high school drop outs who need to feel they can make their way in a world which is actually beyond their capabilities to understand. These novels are disguised catechisms for those who require simplistic answers to complex questions. Usually life teaches them that Rynd was writing for dreamers and they check into reality that Galt gulch doesn't exist and Rynd and her cronies were just as flawed and their lives were just as banal as everyone else's. She lived on amphetamines and pined away for a much younger man who rejected her for years after she wrote AS. A sad life surrounded by ass kissers for whom she had only contempt. Stossel is perfect for the deluded fools over at Fox.
Zelduh
Damn! You must have known Ayn Rand personally! She had an unnatural crush on Nathaniel Brandon. It led to embarrassing moments at NYC parties when both Ayn and Nathaniel showed up at the same places. My older sister was one of Ayn Rand's many sycophants.
Msbeachwood
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Ayn Rand come from one of the communist block countries where everything truly is regulated by the state? It is no wonder that she was a reactionary and believed that capitalism could cure all ills. She is like the talking heads at Fox News; she figured out that
extreme ideologies make for good entertainment and press coverage and and in her case sell a lot of novels. Unfortunately, she began to believe her own propaganda.
Sarazzara
Interestingly, Alan Greenspan has been a longtime Rand admirer and disciple. In fact, he was part of her intellectual circle and wrote position papers with her. Ralph Nader wrote a piece on Greenspan's unsuitability to be a protector of consumers and the public interests. In it he quotes from their joint writings:
"Government regulation is not an alternative means of protecting the consumer. It does not build quality into goods, or accuracy into information. Its sole contribution is to substitute force and fear for incentive as the 'protector' of the consumer. The euphemisms of government press releases to the contrary notwithstanding, the basis of regulation is armed force. At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun."
And it was deregulation and lack of enforcement of those regs already in place that gave us the crisis in Aug 08.
Thanks Alan and Ayn!
gnosius
I don't know about Stossel but Jennings should have been the last one to talk about objectivity. Remember his specials on JFK's assassination and the UFO's? Anything but objective or truthful. Objectivity in television is like transparency in the CIA ... I don't know if Stossel was good or not for ABC but I'am not so sure Jennings was as good to American as advertised.
donnybrkgr
I am glad Stossel left ABC- I never enjoyed watching his pieces. I never liked his views. Goodbye and Good riddance
jeff123
I second that. Good for ABC.
jeff123
I second that. Good for ABC.
JohnnyCakes
Stossel always looked to me, with his died hair and matching mustache and eyebrows and form-fitted shirts, as a cross between a used car salesman and a porn star. I also think he's full of shit.
fwbabe
yes, John Stossel is an ass. He is where he belongs, with other assholes.
orsay54
DITTO!!
Zelduh
I third that! Ugh! Congratulations, ABC! (BTW - What the hell took ABC so long???)
ScapeGoat
I fourth it.
I always wondered why his pieces were so slanted. I found out he was a libertarian and then I say the dim light that shown from his "intellect".
Jennings was right.
Rand's writings give simplistic answers to complex problems. Basically just let the market system work and all will be good. The point of view that brought us the great depression and the bush depression.
hithere3
John Stossel is "star" talent??
GaiaSighs
Correct. As in 'shooting star, descending.'
hithere3
lol
drjonathan
I hope you read this.
Mr. Stossel: You DO violate the objectivity of ABC. You are much better suited to the conservative spin doctors at FOX than you ever were for working at a real news organization. LONG before the internet dealt such a harsh blow to news organizations, there was you and your kind out there intentionally taking your slanted bias and dressing it up as objective news. My stomach has turned for nearly 20 years every time I watched you sell moustache rides on ABC and pass them off for real news.
Please enjoy your time at FOX. PLEASE. Everyone at ABC is hoping you can make a nice career there... so there is no chance you will be back.
Lssmc2
Did I just wander into hateland? I have never seen such hate filled attacks on one persons, except maybe Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. I have always enjoyed diverse ideas and exchanges. I'm an Independent who feels like we need more people like Stossel. Do we have to have a left and right view for every issue? I happen to agree with most of his reporting.
I recently had a knee replacement and had little to watch but news on the tiny hospital tv. I first watched O'Reilly, who had both liberals and conservatives as guest. Then Hannity, although a right winger himself had a panel of three who were also mixed on their political views. I then turned to CNN and MSNBC and the hatred of Republicans was oozing. There was never a conservative rebuttal on anything. If Stossel violated the objectivity of ABC, then all the other media except FoxNews violates the objectivity of the American people. I wish him well in his new FoxNews surroundings, who's ratings triple those of all the other cable news networks combined. Who knows? Stossel might even beat 20/20.
ScapeGoat
I hear the Twilight Zone music in the background.
Msbeachwood
Unfortunately, what has happened in journalism over the last 20 years is that the expression of two radically opposing views battling it out, rather than thoughtful unbiased journalism has become the norm. . These days, the most in depth, unbiased news journalism is being produced on BBC Ironic; that it is essentially a state sponsored enterprise funded with subscriptions paid for by the citizens of UK)
hicotton
Couldn't agree with you more. This kind of hatred is typical of lefties but every time I encounter it, it takes me by surprise. Can't imagine living with so much hate bundled up inside. John Stossel seems a rather tame subject to become exercised over. He's obviously bright, articulate and committed to stories that go beyond banalties. Food for adults, fodder for children.
jeffro
Yes.
If you will read the article you wills see him perpetuating a bold faced lie, that he is has to be aware of, that the financial crisis was caused misguided government regulation forcing banks to make un sound loans to minority's.
This is a problem because look how many ignorant people will believe it? Look how many people still think Iraq had WMD's.
Loosing site of the fact that regardless of a right/left slant, there is still a true/false, and it matters.
This guy appears to be pushing propaganda for money to the detriment of our society, am I supposed to respect that?
geewhizbang
John Stossel is an arrogant, ill-informed fool, perfect for Faux News. His nearly fact-free reporting always has been slanted to the extreme right.
It is to Peter Jenning's credit that he wasn't willing to accept what John Stossel does as responsible journalism.
felixw
You obviously can't tell the difference between a libertarian and a right-winger. Read up a bit, and come back and post when you figure that one out.
gdkzen
Ayn Rand's writings are interesting, but they should be but a sampling of the philosophy that one reads. She is not the beginning and end of truth in the universe. Stossel is yet another in a long line of desperate individuals looking for easy answers. His journalism and conclusions are garbage precisely because he approaches his work from one point of view and seeks to use that work to bolster that point of view. Pseudo-intellectual masturbation.
johnstafford
Remember Ally Sheedy's line from "The Breakfast Club"--
"When you grow up, your heart dies"?
=I thought of a corollary to that sad assertion reading about John Stossel: "When (certain) men grow up, their soul dies."
drjonathan
I had SUCH a crush on her when I saw her in that movie. But she never called... :(
DEhrenstein
Why didn't you ask Stossel about his carrying water for Matthew Shepard's murderers Lloyd?
idiotking
Oy vey, another Ayn Rand accolyte? She's a philosopher in the same way L. Ron Hubbard is a prophet -- and not even as good as a writer!
Ah the myth of the rugged individual... yes, we're all islands unto ourselves, never mind the families, communities, and polities that we're a part of. Caring about anyone else is weakness! People who are rich must be better than you! Unfettered capitalism never results in corruption or oppression! We must rid ourselves of body thetans and overthrow galactic overlord Xenu!
infomaniac
And don't forget about greed either. It's good!
cigi63
Ayn was a victim of her own past. As a person who grew up under Communism, she merely accepted that there were no ills with Capitalism. We don't send our serfs to gulags, we merely imprision them with 24hr/7day free market capitalism and a mountain of debt. Our gulags our the Corporate halls where folks sit in cubicles and do mindless work for the elites of this world..They wear shirts and ties and don't know they are prisoners of an evil system all the same.
MurrayAbraham
Anybody who believes Atlas Shrugged is anything more than a badly written piece of fiction deserves the boot.
desmond
John, I can see why you are going to Fox News, the REALITY DISTORTION TV. You idealize Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, the book whose protagonist, John Galt, invents the perpetual motion machine.
The book's premise is pure ideological fantasy just as the perpetual motion machine of Ayn Rand's imagination. It is fascinating that you claim that the largest financial meltdown in our nation's history was due to poor minorities obtaining loans, when the much larger factor was sub-prime loans, a bogus mathematical model of the banks that predicted the ever increasing value of properties when wages had been stagnant for years, and the deregulation of free-wheeling derivative trading that was a real culprit of the financial markets. Even Greenspan spoke of the crisis being due to deregulation, if you recall he was also a big "Ayn Rand" advocate. Like a true fan, (fanatical), you hold to the simpleton ideologies of the pie in the sky novelist, Ayn Rand.
It is no wonder that you are going to Fox News, the reality distortion show that regularly denies the legitimacy and importance of science. Don't forget, John, that it is largely due to the sciences that America became a wealthy country. The "perpetual motion machine" is a violation of physics and your simpleton ideas will fit in very well with Fox news.
I do support businesses, but I recognize regulation is needed. I don't believe in the apparent premise of the financial banking thugs that robbed us blind: "Privatize the gains and socialize the losses." That is where you are going to be headed again if we continue along that path.
cigi63
Bravo! Well stated..honest, cogent, and factual. Stossel would never get it!
orbenn
Except that what desmond said about the cause of the financial meltdown is exactly the same as what Stossel says about it: The cause was sub-prime loans aka loans to people without credit histories or down payments or anything else to let banks know that they would be able to repay the loans.
You, Stossel and I agree on more than you realize.
Also, good job to desmond for playing up the race card. That's not what Stossel was talking about. He believes the programs are bad because they encourage loans to people who can't repay them. The fact that those programs are intended to only help minorites is not material to their negative effect on the integrity of banks. Admittedly Stossel could improve his arguement, but leaving out the reference to race, but an honest person should be able to see where his emphasis really is and ignore the irrelevant information.
I agree that there's a lot of "reporting" that Fox should be ashamed of, but the same goes for ABC, (MS)NBC, CBS, CNN and all the others. No reporting is unbiased because no reporting can show us everything and very little reporting completely lacks commentary. C-SPAN is about as close as you can get because it just shows video of the event, but even C-SPAN has to decide what to show you, and that is bias by omission. Of course no one watches the most unbiased network because C-SPAN is boring and doesn't pander to our preconceptions. :(
As for regulation, there are two kinds: good, bad and irrelevant.
Good regulations are things like making it a crime to embezzle money or the fact that courts will enforce contracts or making criminalizing price fixing and other truely anti-competitive acts. Bad regulation includes forcing interior designers, yoga instructors and other low risk service professionals to pay thousands of dollars and have college degrees just to get licenses to allow them to do business legally. Irrelevant regulation is regulation that doesn't affect anyone or anything, and is synonymous with bad regulation. It's only function is to take up space and make it hard to find bad regulation.
Stossel isn't in favor of anarchy. That's not what "deregulation" means when you hear it from a libertarian. Deregulation means getting rid of rules that don't actually work IN PRACTICE.
Government passes a lot of rules with ostensibly good intentions, but almost never repeals the ones that don't work. This is what Stossel is talking about. This is what Ayn, with her admittedly extreme examples, was talking about.
jeffro
Except the government never forced any banks to give people sub prime loans.
It happened because a bunch of crooked unregulated investment bankers we are to create the massive derivatives market off of a bogus math formula they new was bogus. So they could steal the money and pawn the losses off you and me, worked perfectly.
His premise is a bold faced lie meant to further his warped ideology.
xargaw
Peter Jennings was a sound journalist and is truly missed. Stossel has certainly been overt in his bias. The problem with him is that he often tried to pull off his slant as being straight talk and NOT opinion which is dishonest. However, as far as ABC goes, they are truly calling the kettle black. Viewers only have to remember "The Path to 911" and the Presidential Debate moderated by Charlie and George to realize that the network lost it's moral compass quite awhile ago. I haven't watched a news broadcast or political program on ABC since that debate. They have lost all credibility.
Leprekike
One of the more oft-repeated misunderstandings about libertarianism is that libertarians (and some like-minded Republicans) don't care about anyone but themselves. These people care, but they just don't believe that it is right for the government to use taxpayer funds to help them; they blanche at the unfairness and lack of citizen involvement in the various decisions made by Congress. While some may say that this only underscores their apathy, that would be an unfair assessment. Libertarians want smaller, more financially accountable government, and a government that is less involved in the daily lives of its citizens. As government grows, so does the financial burden placed on the citizenry to ensure that it keeps running. Add more departments, more programs, more abrogation of personal choice and it's going to cost more, which always translates into higher taxes. At the core of the argument against government-run healthcare are two important points, one of which is the need to follow the US Constitution, while the second is the resistance to placing a greater burden on the public, which has already revealed itself to be quite suffocating: current taxes are increased, more taxes are instituted and there are penalties and possible jail time for those who refuse to engage in the new policies. The entire universal healthcare push denies Americans their constitutional rights on far too many levels to be comfortable to anyone with a libertarian mindset.
SublimeMonkey
And you would prefer complete corporate control of people's health care? Unacceptable. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a public option. This an old and incorrect argument.
ScapeGoat
agreed.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.