Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel - Why Everything You Know is Wrong

by John Stossel

• Singles have a better sex life than married people, right? Wrong! A University of Chicago study shows that married couples are having more sex--30% more--and better sex, than singles. But movies, TV shows, and other reporting about marriage never feature that fact.
• Do we have less free time than we used to? Countless news stories and anecdotes from friends and family make the overwhelming case that we're running ourselves ragged. But when people actually keep track of their activities in a time diary, studies show that we have significantly more free time per day than in 1965. So why is everyone out of time?
• Surburban sprawl is ruining America. Huge subdivisions and massive highway construction is eating up our free space and affecting our quality of life. Isn't that what you always hear? So why do you never hear that 95% of America is undeveloped, or that so-called 'smart development' prices lower-income families out of property ownership?
• Also: Does shaving make your hair grow back thicker? Do girls feel more pressure to have sex than boys? Are gas prices really through the roof? Is outsourcing bad for American workers?

John Stossel takes on these and many more misconceptions, misunderstandings, and plain old stupidity in this collection that will offer much to love for old GIVE ME A BREAK fans, and show everyone why conventional wisdom--economic, political, or social--is wrong.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Economics, Business, History, Reference, Philosophy

320 pages, Paperback

First published May 9, 2006

About the author

John Frank Stossel is an American consumer television personality, author, and libertarian pundit, known for his career on both ABC News and Fox Business Channel.

Reviews

[murph · Rating 1 out of 5]

Five minutes of research packaged as definitive truth.

Any review is more than this book deserves - so I'll just give an example of Stossel's breathtaking stupidity.

Here's one of the myths he claims to debunk:

Myth: Polygamy harms Women
Fact: The women aren't complaining.

Stossel backs this up with a walkthrough of a polygamist compound where all the women he speaks to seem to be doing just fine.

-Well, that's it then, isn't it? Conclusive proof that polygamy doesn't harm wome-

Wait. What about this ? Or this ? Or this ?

Well, John? Aren't these people women? Aren't they complaining? Well??!!

Oh - you've moved on to your next sweeping generalization, haven't you?

[Erika · Rating 1 out of 5]

Note: I listened to the book-on-cd version, read by the illustrious author himself. He has a sing-songy, can-you-believe-people-actually-believe-this-stuff? voice.

The cover shows a bullshit-detecting John Stossel holding a shovel, his weapon of choice. The shovel becomes a motif throghout the tome, appearing most frequently in the catchphrase he uses for chastising the bullshit-mongers: "Get the shovel!" By the twentieth time he says it, one can envision his legions of loyal fans chanting along: "get the shov-vellll!!" And I must say, it's catchy. It really does make one want to GET THE FUCKING SHOVEL.

In the book, Stossel rightly exposes some myths such as the Myth that homeopathic medicine is effective, or the Myth that gay people can become straight. Hey, I just read that book on randomness, so I know that by the virtue of the random nature of our world it's possible for him to get some right.

On the other Myths, however, Stossel seems to be wrong. But I don't see how he COULD be wrong. I mean, he unfailingly backs up his claims with evidence, oft from the National Board of Libertarians, or some other source of that ilk.

Now if you dare, allow me to take you into the mouth of Stossel himself (note: liberal (I mean libertarian?) paraphrasing to follow):

Myth #1: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission helps women. Get the shov-vellll!!! Women are by nature caregivers, and don't want high-powered, high-stress jobs. They want to Nurture. They don't mind making less money if it means being able to care for a family.

Myth #2: Raising minimum wage would help the poor. Get the shov-vellll!!! Raising minimum wage would hurt businesses who in turn would not be able to pay as many people. Low minimum wage allows businesses to grow, and that prosperity will trickle down!

Myth #3: Teachers aren't paid enough. Get the shov-vellll!!! Teachers get so much time off. $30,000 for 9 months of work? Count me in! (this was the Myth that nearly made me crash my car. And I would have crashed it--into John Stossel had he been by)

Oh, also? His plan for global warming is to move inland and build dykes. What a thinker!

In conclusion, by all means DO get a shovel, and use the pointy end to stab Mr. Stossel in the neck.

Myth: stabs wounds to the neck cause a painless, instantaneous death.

[Tabitha · Rating 1 out of 5]

Downright stupidity is right.
I'm not going to argue about whether he has his facts straight or not (mostly because in several cases he doesn't), but I am going to point out that it wouldn't matter anyway thanks to the rock-hard shell of arrogance clotted around this book.
I originally picked up the book thinking "Oh myths and lies, this ought to be fun." I had no expectations from Stossel himself, since I've never watched 20/20 or had any contact with anything else he's done. I was assuming that I might learn a couple things and disagree with a couple and that would be that.
Instead I was bombarded with the ravings of a guy who was already positive he was right. About everything. In his snippets of interviews he crowed with delight anytime one of his 'experts' agreed with him even slightly, and he bullied anyone who didn't agree until they gave in or he got bored. He didn't really seem to take any of the multitude of topics in his book seriously. I think the most any one of them got was three or four pages. He spoke to and cited at most two or three people per topic. Even if he wasn't so damn smug, it would have been very disappointing to find so little effort put into the research.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Okay, so I can see how some people angrily disagree with this book, claiming that he is misleading the reader with sweeping generalizations about things like the wives of polygamists not hating their arrangement. True, it's hard to prove certain things without going very in-depth, but how exactly are you going to go about that? Are you going to trot the globe and interview every single wife of every single polygamist? Would that be enough? What about polygamists of the past? Can there EVER really be enough proof for some people?

That issue aside, though, the book is actually quite eye-opening. Things that you've been conditioned to have a certain opinion about (through parents, school or the media), or commonly-adhered to "old wives tales" are frequently false, and he presents a very good case for the majority of them. While I don't completely agree with everything (especially certain comments about big businesses looking out for us - again, a very conditional thing), he does support what he's saying with enough evidence to at least get you thinking. I think that's REALLY what the book is about - it's not a political book, trying to sway your opinions towards his, but just a mental kick-start to question what you've generally accepted blindly.

If there is one VERY true idea I walked away from this book with, it's that there are far too many lawyers in this country, and we need to do something about that. This sue-happy culture we've adopted is slowly killing us all.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

I checked this out from the library. It was in the new books section and had an intriguing title. A few days afterwards I was flicking channels and saw the author on a talk show. He acted like a jerk.

I flipped through the book and did not intend to read it. Instead it turned out to be interesting. He took many popular myths and beliefs and attempted to explode them with evidence and statistics.

I don't agree with many of his opinions, but the book made for some thought provoking reading. I don't know whether to take him too seriously though, since he was light on hard facts and heavy on opinion and anecdotal evidence.

[Bethany · Rating 4 out of 5]

I always enjoy John Stossel's 20/20 reports and was excited he finally released a book based on his recent "myth-busting" stories. If you want comprehensive, in-depth discussion on controversial subjects, this is NOT the book for you. If you would like snippets of information and entertaining food for thought, you will love it. Easy-to-read and great for picking up and putting down in your moments of free time. If you hate this book... you need to lighten up. It is not necessarily thorough, but it is thoroughly enjoyable!

[melydia · Rating 3 out of 5]

The famous 20/20 anchor takes on a large number of commonly held beliefs and discusses whether or not they are true. I learned quite a bit about a broad range of subjects, and Stossel's straightforward writing style is immensely readable. However, I have a feeling that if I was a die-hard believer in any of the myths covered here I would have left unconvinced and unimpressed. The trouble with this book is that there are too many topics discussed with not enough depth. Most of the myths are covered in a page or two, with a couple of general statements, maybe some statistics or interviews, and an example to illustrate his point. Unfortunately, the plural of anecdote is not data, and I suspect many people dismiss Stossel's words out of hand because of it. That's not to say people should avoid this book on the grounds that it doesn't dig very deep; some of the myths are covered quite thoroughly and even with the ones that weren't I still came away with a lot to think about and some stuff I'd like to look into further. I just think Stossel's message would be more effective if he wrote a book with a narrower focus and a lot more detail.

[Ronald Wise · Rating 1 out of 5]

I didn't know anything about this author or book, so I went into this one with no expectations. It was like watching a marathon series of 10-minute senationalist news stories aimed at "revealing the truth". Take the most complicated issues and reduce them to an interview where four or five statements are used to prove your point, and set everyone straight. The most salient feature of Stossel's thinking is that "government" is this big bad monster trying to ruin our way of life — perhaps similiar to how the Iraqi's feel about us now. Of course there was no discussion of how those government processes work — no debate, no elections, etc. This guy is trying to be a sensationalist journlist, attacking "sensationalist" journalists and using the same tricks. I didn't know what to make of many of his revelations — not knowing the specific facts — but when he said that there was no difference between Starbucks coffee and Folgers, I knew he didn't know what he was talking about, not even realizing the difference between arabica and robusto coffee! This book was on the New York Times best seller list for a couple months in the summer of 2006.

[Jwonnacott · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book had some pretty interesting sections in it. However, some of the chapters seemed to get repetitive.

I also feel like the author contradicted himself at times to make whatever point he wanted at the time. For example in one portion of the book he explains how easily you can get experts to say whatever you want for a segment on TV. Later in the book he uses "experts" as his inarguable evidence that something is a myth.

Having read some other books that try and prove or disprove theories, I was a little disappointed in how little detail he went into when "disproving" the myths. Some would reference studies with just their conclusion and no real detail of the study. They would also reference just one study, even though in another part of the book when he is arguing with a study he says something along the lines of "there is a study for everything!".

Those complaints aside there was a good amount of interesting information in this book; however, I doubt I would recommend it to anyone.

[David Robins · Rating 5 out of 5]

While it contains a lot of debunking of urban legends (e.g., cold temperatures cause, or make one more likely to catch, colds), it does far better in highlighting so many areas where the government infringes individual rights to our detriment. Some examples include consumer "protection", licensure of lawyers (violent prevention of competition), the ADA, FDA, EPA, global warming, and farming subsidies. It makes me sick when I realize the state uses its violent monopoly to stop people from doing jobs people want to hire them for - law advice, electrical work, plumbing - and will lock them up if they persist. This is not a free country. Bring on the revolution.

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

No huge surprises and I don't agree with everything he says, but a lot of it was thought provoking. His style of arguing a point without over-dressing is likeable, an "every man" style of simplicity, and at a couple points he's self-denegrating in a very unapologetic, matter-of-fact way.

[Angela · Rating 1 out of 5]

I thought this book was really biased with narrow views. It failed to look at the whole picture of things in many of the arguments presented.

[Scott L. · Rating 1 out of 5]

Stossel is full of s**t, and this book is a bunch of political drivel.

[Chip Hopper · Rating 4 out of 5]

Topics that everyone should understand. My favorite section is about public schools. A full recap of the school section can be found here. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/st...
Here is part:
School-Choice Proponents Meet Resistance
When the Sanford family moved from Charleston to Columbia, S.C., the family had a big concern: Where would the kids go to school? In most places, you must attend the public school in the zone where you live, but the middle school near the Sanford's new home was rated below average.

It turned out, however, that this didn't pose a problem for this family, because the reason the Sanfords moved to Columbia was that Mark Sanford had been elected governor. He and his wife were invited to send their kids to schools in better districts.

Sanford realized how unfair the system was. "If you can buy a $250,000 or $300,000 house, you're gonna get some great public education," Gov. Sanford said. Or if you have political connections.

The Sanfords decided it was unfair to take advantage of their position as "first family" and ended up sending their kids to private school. "It's too important to me to sacrifice their education. I get one shot at it. If I don't pay very close attention to how my boys get educated then I've lost an opportunity to make them the best they can be in this world," Jenny Sanford said.

The governor then proposed giving every parent in South Carolina that kind of choice, regardless of where they lived or whether they made a lot of money. He said state tax credits should help parents pay for private schools. Then they would have a choice.

"The public has to know that there's an alternative there. It's just like, do you get a Sprint phone or an AT&T phone," Chavous said.

He's right. When monopolies rule, there is little choice, and little gets done. In America the phone company was once a government-supported monopoly. All the phones were black, and all the calls expensive. With competition, things have changed -- for the better. We pay less for phone calls. If we're unhappy with our phone service, we switch companies.

Why can't kids benefit from similar competition in education?

"People expect and demand choice in every other area of their life," Sanford said.

The governor announced his plan last year and many parents cheered the idea, but school boards, teachers unions and politicians objected. PTAs even sent kids home with a letter saying, "Contact your legislator. How can we spend state money on something that hasn't been proven?"

A lot of people say education tax credits and vouchers are a terrible idea, that they'll drain money from public schools and give it to private ones.

Last week's Florida court ruling against vouchers came after teacher Ruth Holmes Cameron and advocacy groups brought a suit to block the program.

"To say that competition is going to improve education? It's just not gonna work. You know competition is not for children. It's not for human beings. It's not for public education. It never has been, it never will be," Holmes said.

Why not? Would you keep going back to a restaurant that served you a bad meal? Or a barber that gave you a bad haircut? What if the government assigned you to "your" grocery store. The store wouldn't have to compete for your business, and it would soon sell spoiled milk or stock only high profit items. Real estate agencies would sell houses advertising "neighborhood with a good grocery store." That's insane, and yet that's what America does with public schools.

Chavous, who has worked to get more school choice in Washington, D.C., said, "Choice to me is the only way. I believe that we can force the system from an external vantage point to change itself. It will never change itself from within. ... Unless there is some competition infused in the equation, unless that occurs, then they know they have a captive monopoly that they can continue to dominate."

Competition inspires people to do what we didn't think we could do. If people got to choose their kids' school, education options would be endless. There could soon be technology schools, science schools, virtual schools where you learn at home on your computer, sports schools, music schools, schools that go all year, schools with uniforms, schools that open early and keep kids later, and, who knows what else. If there were competition, all kinds of new ideas would bloom.


Here is t

[Mark Henkel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Book Review by Mark Henkel
© August 6, 2021
4,500 words

Corporate media twisting stories for profit - rather than just reporting facts - creates massive confusion and mistaken perspectives, or, as John Stossel’s book identifies them,
"Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity."
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6...
Published in 2006, written by renowned John Stossel (the TV journalist of "20/20" on ABC and "Stossel" on FOXNews), this book is quite thought-provoking, worthy of a rating of 3 of 5 Stars.

A former "consumer reporter," Stossel had recognized how his media bosses and corporate advertising clients exploited/manipulated stories because doing so increases viewership ratings, increasing ad revenues. (I note as an aside, over this last decade and a half, I myself have created the term, #NewsPurports, to more accurately describe such distorted yet so-called "News Reports.") John Stossel exposes many modern misconceptions in "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity."



STRUCTURE

Following a one-page "Introduction" and a two-page "Acknowledgements," this book is comprised of thirteen chapters, although only the first 12 are numbered.

Ch. 1 Clueless Media
Ch. 2 He and She
Ch. 3 Bashing Business
Ch. 4 Monster Government
Ch. 5 Stupid Schools
Ch. 6 Consumer Cons
Ch. 7 The Lawsuit Racket
Ch. 8 Experts at Everything
Ch. 9 The Power of Belief
Ch. 10 Our Health
Ch. 11 Perils of Parenting
Ch. 12 The Pursuit of Happiness
Conclusion

Those chapters are followed by a twelve-page "Endnotes," which uses the chapter, page number, and phrase method of footnoting without numbers in the book. After that, the book also includes an eight-page "Index."



HOW CONTENT ORGANIZED

In the "Introduction," author John Stossel opens with the following explanation. "Myth-busting is fun. I wound up doing it by accident: Researching consumer stories, I discovered that much of what I thought to be true was non-sense. On the other hand, ‘myth’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘false’ – it can also mean ‘a popular belief or tradition.’ Occasionally, just as we were ready to shovel the nonsense away, a myth would turn out to be true. Usually, however, the shovel dug up lies and stupidity." He then continues on to note how some "myths" he uncovered might make a reader angry while others might make a reader laugh. He says, "Now I’d like to share my on-the-job education with you."

Each chapter takes on its unique titled topic. Each one then subdivides into a handful of related subtopics, using a Myth/Truth block-heading, with a shovel used as an icon. For example, in Chapter 1, titled, "Clueless Media," the very first Myth/Truth segment is identified on Page 1 as the following.
. . . • MYTH: The media will check it out and give the objective truth.
. . . • TRUTH: Many in the media are scientifically clueless, and will scare you to death.
Each Myth/Truth block-heading, with shovel icon, is followed by few paragraphs of content that make his point – with the author often finding some place therein to add the words: "Get the shovel." Essentially, as he proverbially "shovels away the nonsense," the repeated metaphor of "the shovel" suggests the need for the reader to be ready, as the specific myths are exposed, to shovel the manure (or, to be more precise, the profane word for "feces" that alliteratively pairs perfectly with "SHovel").



STOSSEL’S HUMOR

Indeed, more than just that, John Stossel’s unique sense of dry humor is sprinkled throughout the book. For example, on Page 99, of Chapter 4 titled "Monster Government," Stossel writes the following Myth/Truth block-heading.
. . . • MYTH: "I’m from the government, and I am here to protect you."
. . . • TRUTH: Help!

In a segment about the over-population myth, Stossel writes on Page, 26, "We could take the entire world population, move everyone into the state of Texas, and the population density would still be less than that of New York City. I said that to (Ted) Turner, who then looked at me as if I’d unwrapped a dead fish." After the humor and more conversational quotes, Stossel notes, "The number of people isn’t the problem. Improved technology now allows more people to grow more food on less land. The UN says the world OVERproduces food today."

The largest deep-belly laugh I enjoyed from this book came from the following exchange on Pages 265 – 266 from Chapter 11, "Perils of Parenting." It starts off seriously, but ends unexpectedly humorously: "Loss of trust is the reason that every teen expert we consulted told us spying (on one’s children) is a bad idea… The teenagers agreed. Don’t spy, they said, just talk to us." Then John Stossel follows that with this conversation exchange with a teenager.

"STOSSEL: Can you learn as much by talking?
ARIEL ASTRCHAN: Yeah.
STOSSEL: But you might lie?
ARIEL ASTRCHAN: So? When you were younger, your parents didn’t have this technology.
STOSSEL: And I lied to them.
ARIEL ASTRCHAN: Exactly. So why can’t we just continue that? I mean, I think you turned out fine."

Then Stossel continues with this hilarity, "That remains to be seen." I just could not stop laughing from the combination of the teenager’s genuinely smart commentary and Stossel’s "remains to be seen" comment afterward.

He immediately closes that positive point on a serious note again: "No matter what you tell your kids, every expert said they’re more influenced by what you DO than what you SAY."

Simply exemplified, I perceive that that is the overall style of John Stossel’s writing, and I did quite enjoy it.



GENDER AND POLYGAMY

In the "He and She" Chapter 2, Stossel takes on gender misrepresentations. For one example, on Page 40, he takes on the wage gap idea, writing, "If it’s true, then employers are practicing shameful sexism. But does this even make sense? If employers knew that women would do the exact same job for less money, they’d hire only women. It would be moronic to hire a man." Essentially, John Stossel fully demands/concurs with equal pay for equal work. He merely notes that the math does not add up when aggregating averages, especially when women often choose not to work in certain (e.g., dangerous) fields/types of jobs that might pay higher.

For another example, he takes on the media distortion and misrepresentation of polygamy. On pages 46-48, Stossel ends that same Chapter 2 with the following.
. . . • MYTH: Polygamy is cruel to women.
. . . • TRUTH: The women aren’t complaining.
He uses those subsequent pages to provide details of what he had reported of a renowned Mormon polygamist in the 1990s, named Alex Joseph, and the 8 consenting adult wives who married him. Stossel adds, "By the time Alex Joseph died in 1998 he was married to a real estate broker, a park ranger, a contractor, a midwife, a radio producer, the town prosecutor, and two homemakers." As I have seen other reviewers of this book suggest their hostility that supposedly "all" polygamists "live in compounds," I can recognize that their invented notion supposedly thereby implies that the women "cannot complain." But that assertion is only the critics’ own and intended misinformation. Not everyone lives in a "compound" as that is a scare-term made to frighten everyday Americans. Indeed, after this book in 2006, Stossel did more TV reports about Unrelated Consenting Adult Polygamy (UCAP), reporting how the Polygamy Rights movement involved everyday people who are not Mormon, including Christian and secular polygamists, and who opposed the real criminals and cults being sensationalized in the news. So, such hostile reviewers are simply revealing their own biased prejudice to perpetuate the myth that John Stossel exposed in this particular segment of the book. If anything, they surprisingly prove Stossel’s overall point about people being misled by the myths of the media.



2006 ARGUMENTS FOR CAPITALISM DO NOT APPLY TO 2021 CORPORATISM

While I will not herewith go through and discuss all of the chapters, it is in Chapter 3, "Bashing Business," where I believe that many people will tend to find most of their disagreement with his book. The first two Myth/Truth segments declare the following on respective pages 49 and 50.
. . . • MYTH: Businesses rip us off.
. . . • TRUTH: Most don’t.

. . . • MYTH: Government must make rules to protect us from business.
. . . • TRUTH: Competition protects us, if government gets out of the way.

Right off the bat, John Stossel defers to the free market concept of competition. He is not wrong to do so, but when he quotes Adam Smith in defense of capitalism among individuals, Smith’s arguments do not apply in the inapplicable defense of tactics of corporatism.

It is important to remember that Stossel’s book here was published in 2006. That was a time when the new internet had been formerly and truly free; people could still create, sell, and be found so as to be able to sell things on their own without paying the blackmail fees to the corporate-toll gatekeepers. As such, on Page 68, when he writes, "the average American wage has jumped 6 percent in the last 10 years," that assertion can only apply to the boom years of the internet, 1995-2005 (actually, the big part of that boom was 1995-2000). However, once the economy experienced the oil spike in 2007, the financial crash and subsequent government bailout of handouts to corporations in 2008, and #TheRiseOfThePlatforms hijacking the entire internet over the following decade from ever being free again for everyday people, that assertion has become irrelevant for readers in the 2020s decade.



CORPORATISM HAS HIJACKED CAPITALISM

In my view, the honest 2006 mistake that John Stossel makes for readers in the 2020s and forward is that corporatism has now hijacked capitalism. It is true that, even today as corporatism is so much worse now, some are still confusing and conflating the two by using the arguments of capitalism to wrongly justify corporatism.

On Page 72, John Stossel writes, "Vigorous competition makes it hard to raise prices." That statement is exactly correct, of course.

But for readers in 2021 and beyond, the oligopolies of product markets and the oligopsonies of labor markets have collusively combined to thoroughly remove any sense of ACTUAL "vigorous competition" for human beings to benefit. Prices do not go down anymore, incomes do not go up in proportion to living costs. Both are controlled by the central planners of corporations that use anti-competitive, rentier blackmail systems to prevent competition from lowering prices and from increasing incomes.

Indeed, since (what I call) "#TheRiseOfThePlatforms" (of social media and high-tech corporate giants) have consequently invaded the privacy of everyone and have bought up all their potential competitors – to prevent competition from ever happening – there is not much capitalism or competition remaining.

Corporatism has hijacked it all. And Stossel’s accurate arguments in 2006 cannot apply to this new totalitarian reality of 2021.



FINALLY DOES ADDRESS ANTI-FREE-MARKET BUSINESS

Yet, after going through all that to suggest that all businesses (even the government-born corporations) are supposedly "almost always" good, the chapter does eventually get to a concluding segment that comes off as contradicting its foregoing content. On Page 71, John Stossel accurately writes the following Myth/Truth segment.
. . . • MYTH: Business believes in free markets.
. . . • TRUTH: Most businesspeople couldn’t care less about free markets, and will stifle competition if it serves their interests.
On Page 72, John Stossel explains (what are better defined as) corporatists "rarely think about the principles that brought them success. Worse – when market competition becomes a nuisance – they try to kill it: They conspire to restrain trade. Adam Smith saw that years ago when he wrote: 'People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.'" Stossel continues, "In a free market, businesses can’t kill competition because they can’t use force. So what do some of them do? They turn to their friends in government. Politicians get to use force." And additionally, now in 2021, the government-born corporations also use one-sided seller-"agreements" to apply and to force terms and controls on that which can be called no less than extortion or blackmail.

On Page 74, again quoting the godfather of economics, John Stossel calls out the corporatism that distorts markets, "They shouldn’t try to get their cronies in government to outlaw competition." Stossel continues, "That genius Adam Smith understood this years ago: 'To widen the market and to narrow the competition is always the interest of the dealers . . . The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce . . . ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought to never be adopted, till having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with the public.'"

If John Stossel had opened Chapter 3 with that last segment, instead of using it near the end, it might have given an easier clarity of presupposition for the reader to understand the difference between capitalism and corporatism, even if Stossel was not as aware of it in 2006 to the extent as we now are experiencing it in 2021 reality. Moreover, it might have been additionally helpful to the end of this Chapter 3, for John Stossel to have stated that which he later re-affirms in Chapter 6, "Consumer Cons." On Page 141 he clarifies, "big government hurts consumers much more than business. However . . . That doesn’t mean that businesses aren’t ripping us off. They are, and they’ll do it every chance they get." Now in 2021, it is important for readers to be aware of and to understand the difference between corporatism (of corporations) of today versus the capitalism (of individuals) of Adam Smith.



BOTH SIDES OF GOVERNMENT HYPOCRISY

In Chapter 4, "Monster Government," John Stossel takes on both political sides of hypocrisy in government.

On Page 101, he writes:
. . . • MYTH: Environmental regulators are dispassionate scientists.
. . . • TRUTH: Many are radical activists.
He explains how this happens on Page 103, "How would environmental fanatics capture a government agency? Well think about it. Who is more likely to take a low-paying job with a bureaucratic agency that has little to recommend it except that it gives you the power of force over ranchers and farmers? A dispassionate scientist or a zealot? It’s why in government, the zealots eventually take over."

Conversely, Stossel exposes the "other side" too. On Page 80, he writes:
. . . • MYTH: Republicans shrink government.
. . . • TRUTH: Republicans say they will, but they don’t.
After listing several examples, he writes on Page 81, "Get the shovel. Politicians always say 'job creation' to justify pork." On Page 83, he concludes, "Republican politicians talk about limited government, but the longer they are in power, the more they vote to spend."
...
...
...
[PLEASE READ THE COMMENTS FOR PART 2of3 and PART 3of3 OF THIS BOOK REVIEW]
[YOU MIGHT NEED TO SCROLL DOWN BELOW THE "READING PROGRESS" GRAPHS.]

[Josh Hanke · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a wonderfully fun, humorous and inviting primer for any person wanting to know more about Libertarianism. While the content isn't deep, it is chock-full of great information across many, many subjects (100+) that collectively provide insight into Libertarian justifications. If you're a fan of the Uncle John Bathroom Readers like myself, you'll be very comfortable with the book's format. Stossel was even able to expand on some small details I had learned briefly from the Freakonomics series (Endangered Species Act harms endangered species and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act increased the unemployment rate among older generations). This book is gate-way literature to more fully developed Libertarian treatises such as The Road to Serfdom (Hayek), Atlas Shrugged (Rand), Human Action (Von Mises), and Man, Economy and State (Rothbard).

Note: You may feel annoyed that some "Myths" and "Truths" are one and the same, but Stossel warns us in the Introduction that "Myth doesn't necessarily mean false - it can also mean a popular belief or tradition." And although the content is not deep, I give this book the highest rating because of how quickly and easily it can be read by anyone of varying degrees of political awareness or thought.

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really like John Stossel, although sometimes he's so libertarian he makes even me a bit uncomfortable. A lot of the things he had to stay were kind of shocking, and I had some resistance them to them at first: "That can't be right, everybody knows that!" But then I had to stop and go "why do I know X is true instead of Y? I know Y because 'everybody' knows, but who is 'everybody'? And have you met 'everybody'? The vast majority of the 'everybody' is dumb as a sack of rocks." But it's hard to fight against ideas that are entrenched inside of your brain, even if you don't know where the ideas came from or how you came to believe them so absolutely. It's a lot of effort to try to rewire those areas, even on something as simple as "being cold won't give you a cold."

I'm still not sure I agree with every last thing that he says, but I'm sure he wouldn't want me to just take his word on things, just because. So I think it's a good read for everybody, regardless of belief or affiliation, because he is not shy about goring anyone's ox. And because he's not pulling his punches, I respect him more.

[Dennis Littrell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some hits, some misses, and some maybes that aren't maybes

As might be expected 20/20's John Stossel got some of this right and some of it wrong, which is to be expected when you're a TV media type who's used to keeping it shallow and who doesn't have time to do much reading.

What he got right: "Clueless Media" (Chapter One), although a more accurate chapter title might be "Captured Media" of which of course Stossel is a prominent member. He deprecates PBS and touts the commercial media, and points out that his stories have actually bit the hand that feeds him on more than one occasion. However anybody who watches television with any discernment knows we need PBS.

His format for this book includes a lot of gray bars in this form:

MYTH: The media will check it out and give you the objective truth.

TRUTH: Many in the media are scientifically clueless and will scare you to death.

What he got wrong: Case in Point A ("scientifically clueless"): Stossel references The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy (2005) by Peter W. Huber and Mark P. Mills to claim that tar sands in Alberta, Canada "alone contain enough oil to meet our needs for a hundred years." What he doesn't mention is that extracting that oil is currently not cost-effective, and when it is, it will require not only massive amounts of water (which will by then be perhaps a more fought-over commodity than oil) but will pretty much destroy the surrounding environment, which might be more valuable than the oil!

"The Bottomless Well" is the only book he references on the energy crisis. I hope it's not the only one he's read.

Case in Point B: Stossel doesn't think there are too many people on the planet. People are wonderful. We need more of them. He argues speciously (relying on unreferenced and unquoted ideas from the late wide-eyed economist Julian Simon who believed there was no end to economic growth) that more people mean more talent, "more brains that might cure cancer," etc. But what he misses is that more people also bring more clueless idiots and various sociopaths, etc., who must be clothed and fed and kept off the streets. This is not to mention what each human footprint does to the environment.

Looked at closely Stossel is an ersatz libertarian who has swallowed the supply-side fiction that we will not only never run out of energy because we humans are so clever, but that resources are as abundant as human desire and ingenuity--the kind of argument loved by corporate entities because that allows them to exploit the planet's limited resources without qualm.

What he got right: The public schools are a mess.

What he got wrong: The solution is vouchers and home schooling. It is ironic that one of the things that made the US arguably the greatest country on earth was mandatory public education. What Stossel wants is to turn education entirely over to the private sector. Get government out of the education business. How soon they forget. The real solution is higher pay for teachers, an end to a system that pits administrators and teachers against one another, and higher standards overall. Vouchers would end public education and create a society similar to those in banana republics without much of a middle class.

What he got right: men and women really are different in some ways and so politically correct methods of artificially enforcing a phony sameness of opportunity won't work.

What he got wrong: the idea that it's okay to encourage women to go into bars by offering them free drinks and free food. PC types who object to ladies night freebies are wrong, but Stossel's naive endorsement of such barflying is equally wrong.

Size matters. Yes, he got that right. Women prefer bigger men, especially taller men.

Polygamy, no. It is curious that Stossel endorses polygamy on the grounds that the women he interviewed in Utah and Arizona were happy with their big families. He should interview the omega males who do not have spouses or families. The reason polygamy is outlawed in almost all modern societies is that it leads to political instability because it creates a class of males without wives and children, which is one of the problems in the Middle East. Yes, the average woman might prefer to be the fourth wife of a man with riches, but such a society is unstable. Stossel didn't look far enough.

And yes, chiropractors cannot cure asthma with spinal adjustments; and yes the stock market is a gambling casino with the odds in your favor; and yes, TV stock market experts usually aren't.

But no it's not a "maybe" that we humans are causing global warming (see page 202). It's a big fat YES WE ARE and we better do something about it now.

There's a lot more of this hit and miss. But to be honest, if I counted up every assertion that Stossel makes and kept score, I'd say he got most of them right. However, read with discernment.

I guess I should mention that Stossel has nary a negative word to say about the "...Lies, and Downright Stupidity" of the Bush administration, which is why I label him an "ersatz libertarian": real libertarians despise the policies of the Bush administration. Real libertarians also oppose the phony "war on drugs." But Stossel apparently doesn't see any mythologies or stupidities there. Actually I'm sure he does, but for some reason doesn't mention them in this book. One wonders why--well, one knows why: fear of criticism from social conservatives.

I should also note that this book is endorsed by Fox's Bill O'Reilly. Perhaps that is enough said.

--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”

[Diane Ehrlich · Rating 2 out of 5]

John Stossel has some interesting views on a lot of topics. He's very pro-capitalism and anti-big-government. I agree with a lot of what he has to say about lawyers, lobbyists and corrupt politicians being the cause of a lot of today's problems (even many that aren't immediately obvious) but some of what he says just makes him sound ridiculous. Yes, gas today is cheaper by the gallon than ice cream (one of his favorite points) but no one is buying 30 gallons of ice cream at a time and no one depends on ice cream to get to work or transport their children.

In addition, the book was not nearly as well written as I would expect considering he is a journalist.

[Matthew · Rating 1 out of 5]

poltics notwithstanding, this book suffers greatly from faulty logic and incomplete and/or anecdotal evidence. the afterword tells you all you need to know-this book is in service of an agenda and it shows. as such he tackles gigantic subjects and simplifies them into easily digested soundbites, using the poor logic and evidence mentioned above. i hope no one takes his effort too seriously, because i am not sure he did.

plus, not everything i knew was wrong. i was and am right about some things.

[Kenny · Rating 5 out of 5]

"A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged" is a saying I subscribe to. Stossel's book is a good example of how much we want to believe many incorrect things, despite their untruthfulness, because it makes us feel good to believe them. But "A life based on falsehood is not a life, but merely a shadow thereof" is also true, and facing facts is crucial. And Stossel uses facts to debunk squishy feelings, as he should.

[Clark · Rating 1 out of 5]

I couldn't finish this book. The first few sections of this book were interesting. Then I came to a subject that I know quite a bit about and it was obvious that his research was extremely lacking. This forced me to question everything else that he described as fact. It was just too much to force myself to slog through.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've always enjoyed watching John Stossel on TV so I knew I would almost certainly like his book. It is loaded with interesting and surprising facts, information, and analysis. It was a quick and easy read full of useful ideas as well. It was TV Stossel in a book. I would recommend this book for all readers. It will probably challenge some of your beliefs.

[Melissa · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've always loved John Stossel. Since I was a kid, he was my favorite news person. Guess I've always liked kicking against the goads like he does when it comes to collective wisdom and finding the truth of a matter. I wondered since the copyright is 2006 if this would be rather outdated, but it's not. We're still fighting about whether climate change is real (He points to the fact that globe warmed far more from 1900-1945 then anytime since, lots less cars then!) and whether fixing price gouging will make the economy better (he points out how price gouging sometimes actually saves lives as weird as that sounds). Anyway, most every topic contained insides is just as timely, and sort of "comforting" in the fact that yes, believe your intuition, most of what people in power tell you is a lie, or rather a story you'll believe because you aren't shown actual stats that aren't twisted or sought out for confirmation bias. Media, politicians, and what everyone "knows" are more like wives tales than anything else a lot of the time.

There were maybe 2-3 things in this book that I thought could likely be wrong now that more years and data are likely collected or the fact that he didn't consider a certain angle that I think would have shed light on the matter, and one about parenting that I caught myself throwing my guard up against because I disagreed right away, but after the whole explanation on how it was a "myth" I couldn't really disagree with the conclusion, though I'd not go so far as he does, but still, it was "nice" to be confronted with one of the few of these myths that I hold to be true and made to reconsider.

Mainly, I enjoyed the book because constantly not believing what I'm told simply because someone asserts it can be exhausting, especially when you don't have the time or resources to definitely call it out each and every time, and at some point you wonder if you're in the movie Gaslight, but I'm not, most things are far more nuanced than claimants purport, so I'll just keep being skeptical of most things and assure myself that I'm likely right even if I can't take down the asserter off the top of my head. :) Definitely read this if you tend to believe everything you hear.

[Jonathan Maas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Conservative? Maybe. Contrarian? Probably. Data-fiend? Totally.

I regularly read those with whom I disagree with, particularly conservative voices.

Most of the time they enlighten me somehow, but few enlighten to the level of John Stossel.

I can't even call him a conservative - he's a free thinker.

Why?

Because though most of his contrarian viewpoints push back against the Left-leaning tide, when the data does not support it, he states it.

For example - he explodes the myth that women are worse drivers



The average MGTOW will find an anti-woman angle, and then rake in all the attention from the rage-shares, and then paint themselves as either a victim or a martyr in whatever cause they are fighting for.

But John Stossel looks at the data, and it every angle shows that men are worse drivers.

He calls it out for being false.

Some myth analysis has a conservative angle, and the rest are fun

He hits a few conservative points - The minimum wage hurts the poor, feminists are somehow hurting their cause, men and women are different.

And then the rest are kind of fun.

High end coffee is indeed made through an improved process, from growing to roasting, but it does not win in a taste test.

Bottled water does not win in a taste test.

That kind of thing.

So yeah - I'd recommend it to anyone who might want to open their eyes a bit

No, John Stossel is not the 100 percent fountain of truth. It's an opposing viewpoint.

And no, it won't convert anyone.

But each page makes you think, and he doesn't get personal. He doesn't rail against the Left, or this person or that. He just brings a few ideas, and they are easy to read, even if you don't agree with them.

I recommend it to everyone.

[Terry R. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity – by John Stossel – Completed 04/22/2024
To my wife, J.E.M.; children, B.J.M.; A.N.C.; T.L.L. and their spouses.
I am not sure where to start with this Morning Coffee Book. I would describe it as a “just push through it” read, meaning get it finished so I can move on to another book. That’s not saying this one is bad but with so many topics, that Stossel picks apart that you lose track of what you are reading. So “Get The Shovel” and keep it handy while reading.
My family is pretty conservative although they will not admit it, as a result politics are not discussed at family gatherings. Stossel is smart, sharp, so he shy’s away from any topics that lean towards politics. In reading the first four or five chapters, I found myself saying “oh I wish so-and-so (enter any family member) could read this. Just to keep the family banter going without the politics topics. There is a topic for every member of the family to read.
Stossel’s book has so many stories that touch you in some way. He can develop conflicting stories just based on occupation, beliefs, lifestyle or life experiences, all of which provides him with conflicting stories. I said several times “hey I thought that way also”. In my mind, the stories are easy because they have been so argued over the years. Examples, Male Vs Female drivers, Outsourcing jobs, Unions, Organ Transplants, Bottle Water, Medicine Malpractice, Violent Video Games, Global Warming, Kids and Sugar, Spanking, money and happiness are just a few.
Some of his more notable sentences for me were “If we let lawyers make all the rules, they won’t stop until they’ve taken all our time, our freedom and all our money”. So true. Or “We get sick in the winter more, no it’s because were inside more breathing on each other, passing viruses back and forth”.
So is John your hero? No, he just another reporter who found a niche placing conflicting sides of the same story. I would label him as an instigator, stirring the pot kind of guy. You can believe some and call Bullshit on the other ones. Thus his “Get The Shovel” phrase definitely applies to the book. Read the book.
Love Dad, T.R.M.

[Michael Medlen · Rating 1 out of 5]

John Stossel makes some salient points about classic conservatism but is a hypocrite on his stance about lawsuits--he just filed one against Facebook in the last three years!

He is of the typical boomer-mindset in that he takes advantage of opportunities, but rarely sticks to his own boasting of newfound Libertarian principles. His style relies more on shock and charlatanism, and may have been bolstered by how ABC's producers developed his ungrateful talent. It's one thing to leave a company for better opportunities, it's another to bash them at every turn, when his own YouTube style of reporting resorts to the lowest common denominator of right-wing political campaigns.

Stossel wants views; as an educator and person of faith, I am truly appalled at the gall he has to preach the preach, but live the life of an elite. That speaks highly to his character flaws more than anything else. Stossel attended Princeton, an Ivy League school for girls who want to be book editors. He is smart and capable, but often resorts to bottom of the barrel scrapings for stories--it makes one's eyes roll in their sockets. Even Reason magazine can explain these concepts better.

This book is a worthy attempt, but Stossel was at his best when he reported for Fox Business. But that's all Stossel regretfully is--a legacy journalist who never aimed higher than the lowest denominator. And his supposed takedown of American wrestling's kayfabe is childish--he should be thankful he was not smacked harder...

👎👎

[Patricia Ibarra · Rating 3 out of 5]

John Stossel, anchor of the TV show 20/20, questions what we have learnt since very young, many of the ideas fed by the media, the current status in many different fields, and things we simply take for granted. We learn how reporters sometimes present information without scientific or hard evidence and how after listening to new "scientific" facts, everybody ends un convinced that they are true. For example, contrary to what we believe forbidding DDT has caused more damage than good, the negative results that all types of lawsuits have had on development, the rip-off of bottled water, among many others. An eye opener. For non-Americans, some chapters are irrelevant, such as the way government works. Anyhow, the take-away message is never to buy only one side of the story and pay attention to the hidden intentions others may have.

[Barbara · Rating 1 out of 5]

Another from the SOUB that I had to abandon. Stossel is personable, witty and smart but after the first couple of chapters I began to doubt that he was unbiased as he wants me to think. Almost every government function or worker gets a smug spanking, accompanied by a half-hearted nod to the possibility of any greater good. Eventually I realized I had to take all of his debunking with a grain of salt so I gave up. Too bad, because a truly unbiased look into myths, lies and downright stupidity would be refreshing.

[J Henderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the second time that I read this book. It was just as much fine the second time around and almost 15 years later. Love him or hate him, self-proclaimed Libertarian John Stossel makes you question some of the "obvious" truths in the world (e.g, Profiteering is "evil") and provides arguments as why you should question your knee-jerk reactions.