With the smartest experts and the best economists, could the federal government run the U.S. economy? Could it keep America's $17 trillion economy going like a well-oiled machine? Steve Forbes, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes Media, explains why no one person or group can "run" the economy, and why any attempt to do so can only make things worse.
Donate today to PragerU! [ Ссылка ]
Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they're released. [ Ссылка ]
Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.
iPhone: [ Ссылка ]
Android: [ Ссылка ]
Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! [ Ссылка ]
Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! [ Ссылка ]
Do you shop on Amazon? Click [ Ссылка ] and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
VISIT PragerU! [ Ссылка ]
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: [ Ссылка ]
Twitter: [ Ссылка ]
Instagram: [ Ссылка ]
PragerU is on Snapchat!
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: [ Ссылка ]
JOIN our Educators Network! [ Ссылка ]
Script:
Is our economy a machine, like an automobile, a train or a power plant?
One constantly hears phrases such as the economy “is overheating” or “needs to cool off” or “could use some stimulus.” These aren’t harmless metaphors. They epitomize how economists have taught us to see an economy—as something that can be manipulated, guided or driven. And guess who does the driving? The government.
The government is supposed to make sure that the economy “hums” along at an even speed, going neither too fast nor too slow. But the economy is not a machine. It is made up of people, and no one can control what billions of them are going to do.
What gets overlooked, underplayed or simply ignored is the extraordinary “churn” in the activities of a free market. New businesses open while others close, constantly. In the U.S. during normal times a half-million or more jobs are created each week, while another half-million are cut. Entrepreneurs continually roll out new products and services, most of which flop. But those that succeed can greatly improve our quality of life.
What government can and should do is to positively influence the environment in which this hum of activity takes place through sensible taxation, monetary policy, government spending and regulation. And in almost all instances the best prescription for economic health is “less is more.”
Catastrophic mistakes by governments can poison the marketplace, as happened during the Great Depression in the 1930s, to a lesser extent in the 1970s, and then again in the panic of 2008–09.
The government’s recent mistakes have been compounded by tax increases and an avalanche of antigrowth regulations from ObamaCare, the Dodd-Frank financial services bill and all those Washington regulatory agencies, such as the FCC, the EPA and the National Labor Relations Board. If you want to understand why the American economy has been growing at the anemic pace of 1 to 2 percent a year, look no further.
Again, the idea of an economy that purrs along like a well-oiled machine hurts, not enhances, wealth creation because invariably, it leads to growth retarding government intervention. Which brings us to bubbles.
Shouldn’t the government, the argument goes, at least try to stop them from happening? Well, it depends. Those caused by misguided government policies like the housing bubble of the mid 2000’s, yes. Those caused by the free market, no. Bubbles have a bad name, but not all of them are created equal. There are healthy ones and unhealthy ones. The good kind develops when a lot of people simultaneously recognize a great opportunity.
Computers are an excellent example. During the early 1980s there was a boom in personal computers–followed by a severe shakeout, when companies such as Atari and Commodore bit the dust.
In the late 1990s a number of companies recognized the importance of search engines. Google emerged supreme with Microsoft and others relegated to fractional market shares.
For the complete script, visit [ Ссылка ]
