Peter Schiff Was Right
By John Amato Tuesday Nov 25, 2008 9:00amAs C&Lers know, I actually watched many of Schiff's appearances on the Conservative-dominated stock shows and indeed all the free-market, screw-the-middle-class blowhards routinely laughed at him as he tried to bring some reality to their petty world. Things were terrible and nothing their cheerleading could do would change any of it ... as we've seen.
Login or Register to post comments.
Mr. Laffer is a really good laff. HAHA. File under, where are they now.
Is Ben Stein related to Barney Frank? They basically said the same thing about the subprime market. I see a copyright lawsuit coming...
And Peter is dead 100% right about the bail out as well
Peter Schiff tells the hard truth on bailout
http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?N=av&T=S...
Glad to see C&L posting stuff like this
The same financial arsonists who burned the economy down now show up with fireman's helmets on, with gasoline in their fire hoses.
The Paulson Plan to extinction.
Here is Marc Faber. The global economy implodes.
Faber, Schiff, and Rogers are all on the same page
Here is Faber laying down more of the same truth just today
http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?N=av&T=M...
Conservatards trying to rescue Detroit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIk4ZLVGIC8
Well... They can't say they weren't warned. Schiff was spot-on about all of it. If the Republican Base still cherished thoughtful, intellectual debate, this "told you so" clip would be meaningful. But the far right HATES this sort of thing... All science and experts do is ruin the reality they've created for themselves.
Thirty years...we didn't get here in 8 years...this is the result of 30 years of deregulation, offshoring, supply side voodoo economics, Milton Friedman, Art Laffer, lax monetary policy, overemphasis on leverage...I can go on and on.
This was not some new form of capitalism. This was thievery...plain and simple. A ransacking of the U.S. treasury, the destruction of unions for no other purpose than to line the pockets of so-called executive MBAs who never had to work for a living, who NEVER understood the BUSINESSES they ran, but simply how to gut and cut in order to grow quarterly profits and gain their bonuses. Any moron can attain short term gains...especially when you cheat, lie and steal. They sold a bill of goods to the American worker under the auspices of patriotism, demonization of socialism (which NEVER existed in this country) and some half assed religious devotion to the auspices of the perfect free market. A concept, like religion, that has no basis in fact and does not take into account how societies really work.
MORONS.
Why do you ignore the fact that we went off of the gold standard in 1971? That we've had a BLIZZARD of regulation- not a lack of it. A lot of "de-regulation" laws included MORE regulation. There has been no TYPE of free-market economics in this country AT ALL. This was not capitalism at all- it was corporatist facism.
We haven't had a "lax monetary policy"- we've had an aggressive monetary policy of pumping in cheap credit into the system creating these bubbles. It was regulation of the market by the Federal Reserve and programs created by congress that caused this mess and its obvious to anyone.
Economics can be quite esoteric, but you should make an attempt to understand the implications of this:
No regulation is needed other than that of the free market. The free market assumes protection of property and liberty--whether provided by government or by the free market itself. But other than that, the only regulation necessary is the market concept that if you do not serve your consumers, you go out of business; if you do not produce more efficiently than your competition, you will have to work for them.
Once you understand that, you can understand the difference between Corporate Fascism and the free market.
It would also help to brush up on your history. Regulation did this. Check it out.
What a joke.
Nice to see that some smart thinkers saw what was coming. This shows just how narrow minded and unintelligent the taking heads are - I'd not only like to know "where are they now" but I'd like to see them all come on and say "I was wrong !"
Instead - they all come on and say "no one could have predicted this."
Nice to see that Schiff did predict it.
I want to know what Schiff thinks is going to happen in the next 2 and 5 years. There's a man who should be listened to.
all these so called free marketers whining like a bunch of little bitches that government is the answer.
Honestly, these guys don't need an economics lesson...they need to be thrown a beating.
Most of these "financial experts" are still working, giving commoners their much valued, economic advice.
This clip is friggin' priceless.
Every single one of the conservatives' picks went belly up, and they were laughing at him for saying it was a bad idea.
This needs to be played over and over and over.
Does this guy have any books I can buy? Is his middle name Nostradamus?
Newest book: The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Bull-Moves-...
a little older book: Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse
http://www.amazon.com/Crash-Proof-Economic-Co...
Also his firms website is full of great info and past media interviews:
http://www.europac.net/
Thanks for that. :)
And unfortunately Obama's economic plan is trying to stop the collapse from happening which as Peter has argued will only make matters worse in the future. My hope is president Obama seriously considers Mr. Schiff economic forecasts for what will happen if the government continues running the printing presses full speed.
I think I would have preferred if Obama had picked Schiff as his top economic advisor. It's very obvious that Schiff is EXTREMELY intelligent and saw this coming from a mile away (I've been saying the same thing as Schiff for years to be honest, but he filled in more details).
My favorite part of the clip was when the guy tells viewers to buy WaMu stock. "It's a bargain right now" he says. Funny considering anyway that took his advice at that time lost ALL their money :)
A certain Anti-war Pro-Civil Liberties Republican Presidential Candidate actually had Peter Schiff as his campaigns economic advisor in this past election cycle (2008). It was Ron Paul.
...we could turn back time...
{ Do you enjoy speaking with people who won't reply? This is a dead thread you know? Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think. SiteMonitor}
I wonder how many people lost their shirts because they listened to idiots like Ben Stein? Is there any reason why these guys should ever appear on business shows again, given their obvious lack of knowledge of the markets they profess to know so well?
What a bunch of self-interested ass holes.
economic advice you DESERVE to lose your shirt. It's just like idiots that watch that Cramer show (with all the stupid bells and whistles). The man didn't predict ANY of this economic collapse, he's been proven wrong COUNTLESS times and probably lost his viewers millions, and yet people still tune in to see what his advice is. WHY?!?!
Entertainment, not information. Pure and simple.
These companies knew where they were going, and were pushing hard to have capital injected before they crashed. The financial institutions were hoping they would make it through the election cycle. Fortunately for us, as strange as it may sound, they didn't.
Wow, Schiff is spot on. I remember seeing some of this stuff before, but forgot about it. The only thing I don't think I agree with is that the government should cut spending. But, he was probably talking in context of the current administration. The next administration, he'd probably agree, should increase spending in crucial areas, make new jobs and actually spend the money where it helps the economy.
I doubt he'd want to increase any spending. If you've ever read up on Peter Schiff or seen him in the past, you'd realize that he REALIZES we don't even have that money to spend. According to what I've seen as a majority here, Peter should be in the LOON camp as he was named Ron Paul's economic advisor during his presidential campaign. And yes, Peter Schiff was right, and is right, and we'll see the results of that soon I'm sure. I just can't wait till people realize that the economy is this nations absolute #1 problem right now, and of all the candidates that received their party's nomination, none of them know jack-schiff about how to go about fixing it. As stated above this has been going on for 30 years, not just during the last 8. See you all in the soup line!
No one here at work thinks i'm sane when i say that shit too, but with each passing week/month i am vindicated. It's bitter sweet however cause I know the entire country (and especially my mom who wanted to retire in 3 years) is losing their shirt right now...
..that any of the politicians or others in what we call the corporate or "elitist" class have any interest in fixing the problems. They will be just fine when all of the shit finally hits the fan - that will be happening next year.
It'd be great if Olbermann ran this video clip on his show.
Increased spending should only be considered if there is an increase in revenues. If taxes are cut, spending should be cut. Borrowing our way out of this should not be an option. We should be raising taxes and creating tax incentives to open up new technologies and employment opportunities (which contradicts somewhat, but there has to be a little give to really get our economic system moving). Most financial planners that advise responsibly will tell you to pay yourself first (GOD first if you're a christian, but 10% typically to each), pay your debts, and then you will be put in a place to develop growth. We are in trouble if we think we can keep borrowing. I never heard of Peter Schiff prior to this, but I like him.
will be the last flush -- economy will be a goner. But that seems to be the government plan.
People who pay taxes are slaves and eventually will revolt.
[Have you been back tracking and reading our responses? SiteMonitor}
It doesn't work.
[hazeleyes: You realize that this thread is four months old, right? No one's going to get involved in the conversation with you. There's a chance that the people to whom you're replying are, uhm, dead. Site Monitor]
....so, no one's going to read this thread?
I wonder why it's not deleted...
{Now,now. Don't get persnickety. Why don't you pick an active thread?
SiteMonitor}
..is nuts!
ANOTHER reason NEVER to watch Fox News.
being narrow minded in this day and age is NUTS! I'd rather consider ALL the information presented, and make up my own mind after the fact, thank you very much. But if you're happy hearing only one side of an issue, and consider yourself informed because of it, more power to you!
if Fox News goes belly up...Cavuto would get fired and could wind up in a university job teaching his brand of horseshit to young minds.
I don't watch any of this scoundrels anymore because I realized awhile back that I'm better at guessing outcomes than THEY are.
Laffer is disgusting. That prideful sneer, so typical of the average republican who can't see the forest for the trees...because his head's up his ass.
These people convinced investors to keep tossing good money after bad, to keep buying into the grand casino called Wall Street.
They did what they're paid to do by their corporate pimps: To convince gullible middle-class fools to part with their money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p956G0n0YzQ
at least they were smart enough to start building guillotines.
...and smart enough to use them, too!
The French can take a lickin'.
Amazing
Jis Caint Git NO Respeck!
I guess being stuffed full of trivia isn't the same thing as really knowing what you're talking about.
Meanwhile, Peter Schiff was the only one on Fox Noise that was even interested in discussing reality. Why did they keep bringing him back?
Peter Schiff wants us to get rid of the Federal Reserve Bank and go back to Laissez-Faire?
We just came from a period of pseudo Laissez-Faire, that's why we're in trouble.
If it were Laissez-Faire proper we would be an economic basket case now.
If you do some research you will find that the Federal (not federal) Reserve (no reserves) is what has created each boom-bust cycle since its inception. You cannot have any semblance of a free-market economy without first having free-market money. Alan Greenspan was on The Daily Show (of all places) and Stewie ask him that very question. The Fed is a criminal enterprise that sucks the life blood from every citizen (now world-wide) through inflation. Creating money out of thin air is good for the bankers (not banks), but bad for everyone else.
"You cannot have any semblance of a free-market economy because its existence is a myth"
--corrected--
A complete free-market hasn't happened since there is always a state interfering in people's lives. But there is always examples of countries with differing economic freedom. Hong Kong and Switzerland are two of them.
Wrong.
sure, he might have predicted the current collapse, but it didn't take a genius to foresee our current troubles. many did, they just weren't given airtime on cnn/faux/nbc/and the rest.
and anyone who postulates that the markets need to be more free is either on the corporate payroll, or dunderheaded, or a blind ideologue. or all three.
Going back to the pre-Fed private clearing houses would be better than the cloaked monopoly called the Federal Reserve. But what would be even better than multiple private clearing houses, is a Fed that is transparent and somewhat democratic (as in it would have strict oversight from Congress). Right now it has to answer to no one for anything they do.
I was predicting the upcoming collapse on this site two years ago. I could've sooner, but I didn't know this site existed. Free marketers who came on this site insisted I didn't know what I was talking about. But now we see the results, and the free-marketer commenters at that time have ceased commenting on this site, probably from embarrassment. But you don't see me on FAUX news.
Well, if the "free marketeers" were Ron Paul supporters they most likely were not saying everything was fine. They were probably getting their money out of stocks and into hard assets.
We've had absolutely NOTHING like a pseudo Laissez-Faire- what are you talking about? Federal reserve artificially setting the interest rates, taxes, regulations regarding nearly every aspect of business, invasive IP laws- that's a joke. We've had a period of Corporate fascism- which is essentially CENTRAL PLANNING which has never worked and never will no matter how much you want to believe that setting a new "law" will make everything allright.
LOL!...if you can find a job.
Oh...and...NO SOUP FOR YOU!
No soup lines?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YH2gIhYvPc
Oh...lots of soup lines...just no soup.
Sounds like Campbell's regular soup.
I almost did a spit take from laughter when they recommended Lynch, Sachs and other financial stocks.
well buckos get used to soup kitchens because the wpa obama touts is a pipe dream as i said before and no one listened you cant rebuild americas infrasture with unskilled labor, and dont expect the government to pay people to stand around on a job with just a foot on a shovel!
So how do people who are out of work and don't have skills acquire them? Should we just throw our hands up and completely reject any plan to do anything because we have no faith in our labor force? Do we not put people back to work and at the same time solve our growing infrastructure problem because of some perverted belief that the "unskilled" labor is going to just stand around with their feet on shovels. Damn, you're a cynical asshole. So let's put them all on welfare instead? Or should we just let everyone fend for themselves and be shit out of luck, like the Republicans want to do?
It's easy to be a critic, but what's your answer? Let's hear it so we can shit on your crappy ideas.
Uh, Peter Schiff is what you might call a "free market guy."
He was an economic advisor for the Ron Paul campaign.
His father is the anti-IRS tax protester Irwin Schiff.
Oh, and he's completely right on the money (ha ha).
The FDIC is a part of the Federal Reserve System. Without that our deposits wouldn't be insured against loss. Without that assurance it's doubtful people would take the risk on unregulated banks where bank runs and depressions were as common as the 19th century. Without deposits banks would have no money to lend each other, home owners or businessmen. And since only the Federal Government has the power of coinage, who would distribute the coins and notes once pressed and printed, and accept back the old ones due to be destroyed?
I have a problem with the circular reasoning for justifying the Fed. The important question should be "Why would an FDIC be required to insure the depositers agains loss?" The banks that have the deposits should have the reserves on hand to give back to the depositers when those depositers request those funds. Fractional reserve banking creates money by allowing the banks to make more loans than they have reserves. How can they loan it if they don't have it to lend?
That's no tautology, you don't seem to be using the full logic of the term. You can look at pre-1929 to see that people lost everything. It's kind of like government bail-outs, the wealthiest will get rescued first and the rest of us would face a daily struggle to survive.
There's been recent news articles suggesting that more Americans died of starvation during the Great Depression than was previously known.
The Fed was created in 1913. It is the third attempt at a central bank, with the first two failing under the same circumstances as what is ailing our system now. The economy after both previous central bank failings recovered rapibly once sound-money was re-introduced to the country. That is fact. The great depression was bad, indeed. But it was created by the fed, and the duration was extended because of the fed.
The Depression's primary cause was was costs from WWI, and too much paper wealth as more and more people played the stock market without experience. Something similar happened recently if the petrochemical industry is to be believed. The blamed the rising cost of fuel on "non-traditional" speculators.
These speculators along with international banks got saddled with bundles of bad mortgages resultant from the sub-prime loan mortgage crisis.
It was sold as housing the poor, but became a part of the "Industry of the Poor," along with short-term payroll loans, rent to owns etc.
But the FDIC wasn't created until the 1930's, along with the Glass Steagall act. In fact some would say our problems started in 1999 with the repeal of Glass Steagall.
I also doubt international trade would reach our current level with regional clearing houses.
Where did this "paper wealth" come from? The Fed! The speculators are fueled by low-interest rates allowing people to be more risky than they normally would.
As for your trade arguement, I agree, our trade deficit would be much lower now without the regional clearing houses.
The fed only controls the prime lending rates, and other lending funds, and the printing of money. They have little or nothing to do with the stock market unless people are borrowing money to buy stock on the margin. (That is at least before Glass-Steagall was revoked.)
And as for the trade deficit that's hypothetical on your part, if people still wanted to buy imports they will. I was refering to the fact that we would probably be flipping each other's burger, in other words smaller in scale overall and not just in the deficit area alone.
The trade deficit is probably due more to the fact that we manufacture what nobody wants, including ourselves, more and more in factories located in other countries, so economic stimulus to business could never trickle down to the rest of us.
Lending rates should not be determined by a single coercive agency. They should be determined within a competitive market. Artificially low interest rates lead to over-speculation. Cheap credit allows more people to take bigger risks and leads to more losses and more defaulted debt. Eventually, there is a tipping point and there is a bust, like in 1929.
That's why the fed buys back their various lending rates to tighten the market to control inflation and excessive speculation. The FCC controls the insider speculation. If the Congress allows them to operate, which the republicans haven't since 1994.
Only one out of a hundred are "reliable"!!!
In economics they teach that there's positive economics (micro/macro) and normative economics (micro/macro). Positive is almost pure theory but it's detractors can accuse them of being "ivory-tower;" normative is applied economics based on ones mores and norms and can be accused of being partisan.
Scientists would likely scoff that there is such a thing as economic theory, and call the study a "soft science."
I wish I was as smart as Ben Stein. I'd also like to go on TV, make some bucks, and pull opinions out of my ass that are completely wrong. He believes in Intelligent Design too. Tells you something.
That's classic. I wonder if anyone at Fox will see this and apologize?
I absolutely love economics...but it really is a soft science.
Microeconomic modeling has been proven to be total bullshit. Sorry, you can't model human behavior...and because you can't do that...you can't model a society...and if you can't model that...you can't model a market. You MIGHT be able to get close more than 50% of the time, but the fact is it is proven now that all the economic models that this whole house of cards was built on were wrong.
Dude, say of economics what you like, but the models are correct and useful, given the presumptions... Yes, it's not reality, but a flight simulator isn't either, is it? It may be the dismal science, but not as dismal as your post. Go fake your intellect some place else. And if you do know anything about economics, feel free to tell us what (the?) economy is.
Isn't the non-predictability of human behavior something of the Austrian model? They would use that to argue that one couldn't really set prices, but it's due to transactions in the marketplace. But the marketplace no longer works if one of the players get so big it can set it's own prices, lowering them to drive away the competition, monopolize their area, and then demand the increased prices they want.
Oh and then get so big they can demand bail-outs from the government (at taxpayers expense), because they're too big to fail.
You just made a case against having the Fed. This private bank has a monoply, allowing it to steal through inflation.
It's an extension of the government mingled with the public element. They have regulations and congressional oversight (although it can be slighted,) to a level private firms don't have.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
I'm comparing apples and oranges? The Fed creates its own regulations, in secret. Can you tell me when was the last time the Fed has been audited? You may think that there is congressional oversight, but currently congress cannot review what the Fed does. The only way it is co-mingled with government is that they are allowed to use the power of law to force the public to use their fiat money.
If they're in secret how do you know they're not held in consultation with certain congressmen?
The power to delegate administrative powers to administrative departments who can set up their own adminstrative powers and even courts can be found in the US Constitution: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." This would apply to the legislative power over the power of coinage, international trade, trade between the states etc., as well as setting up inferior tribunals to the Supreme Court in Article I.
Additionally, I doubt the fed has been regulated since the republican take-over of Congress in 1994.
Now you seem to be calling for regulations when before you were arguing for open markets.
You can't have "open" markets with the Fed in existence. If you have the Fed, then it must be transparent.
Inflation is caused by when quantity supply falls while quantity demand is still increasing going beyond the equilibrium point in the Loeffler curve.
(I need to check on the name Loeffler to make sure that's correct.)
But you have to understand that no company can ever become a real monopoly without government intervention. Take a look at the history of companies that have tried predatory pricing and you'll see how it never works. The only way for a company to have real market share without the government helping them is for them to offer a better product/lower price/better service. There's plenty of work done about this- look to Dominick Armentano's books on anti-trust law.
Also- the regulation that people who agree with Peter Schiff are not for the markets. But for regulation of governmental institutions- like fannie, freddie, and the Fed.
Inflation's very definition is also simply the increase in the supply of money. That's something the Fed has been doing for awhile and with all these new plans going into effect such as the new 7.4 TRILLION the Fed has promised to inject into the financial markets. We're heaing towards the path of Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic.
Can't it be lack of Government intervention? Admittedly during the Guilded Age there was a lot of bribery, and today could be campaign contributions. But once you offer the "better product, lower price," you're leaving capitalism proper which is open entry into the industry, producing essentially the same good. Good service might be effective in drawing customers but is largely intangible, and can't really be measure in any model.
That being said about the Austrian school, I think part of what's happening now is the public is rebelling against the mathematical assumptions of what they will and will not do. They feel pressed upon. Remember about two years ago conservatives were complaining it was the PUBLIC that was disconnected, believing the economy was bad when bush et al insisted it was doing great?
The Austrian school makes it a point not to use math. That's one of the reasons they are the outcast school of economics. They work with axioms and deductive reasoning and do not do mathematical models based on human behavior.
I recommend a good undergrad course in Thermodynamics. Much of what you will learn was found without need of a deep understanding of how atoms in gases interact with walls and each other.
The challenge is always quantifying how far off a system model will be from reality due to the simplifying assumptions made about the individuals. But this hardly stops us from discovering interesting information.
Well if you agree that you cannot model a market- why are you always for more central planning?
May have seen this coming and at the same time realized the error of his ways in having subscribed exclusively to "Free Market" ideology.
One can adhere to certain economic principles and still not march to a rigid ideological drum beat...can they not?
(although the FOX News crew certainly puts the lie to that theory)
thanks for the insults. Have a nice holiday.
As for flight simulators...the amount of data pales in comparison when compared to the number of variables put into a market model.
I may not be a genius, but at least I understand my own limitations. You assume you have none...which is your biggest.
An economist can learn more about a local economy and make accurate forecasts by simply riding his bike around the area he's studying.
That's what smart investors do.
You may be able to do a relatively accurate flight simulation on your home computer...but I doubt you can do very accurate market modeling on it.
Predicting the economy is like predicting the weather, I think the Chaos Theory is applicable.
(Although sometimes it seems the Chaos Theory is used to exonerate failure.)
"I'll bet you more than a penny!" Hahahahaha.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHf5VxJpwfw
I can't believe they were scoffing and laughing at him. Now that we know his predictions were right, I really enjoyed his confidence and refusal to be silenced by idiots.
Weather has predictable patterns.
Whenever you hear economists and financial types use the term "we are in uncharted waters"...they are trying to justify incorrect modeling. They are saying...ooooh...there were factors we didn't consider, which is EXACTLY my point.
You can't predict all factors when talking about economics (i.e. societal behaviors)...because there are millions of factors at work.
I was lending support to your point.
That's why I think Reason's overrated. Reason assumes all known variable are in when one makes a reasonable decision, but reason contradicts itself by saying more variables may yet be not known. So the reasoning of a modern urbanite vs a prehistoric rustic are roughlty coequal, since they are based on the known knowns if I may was rumsfieldian.
I enjoy gibberish.
I meant to say wax rumsfieldian.
...buy up all the White-out in the world, gather up all the offending balance sheets, statements, reports, what-have-you, and white out all of the offending numbers.
Voila! We can start up a whole new monetary system from scratch, zero, zilch - all debt wiped right off the slate. Brand new day.
So, what would we do with that??
if you model the Second World War...there is no way the Allies win. Germany...better technology...a unified populace...strategic advantage...and yet they didn't.
Why...because human success and failure rests on more than simple mathematics.
if you measure success in wealth. Or, who can piss the farthest!
anyone want to take a crack at modeling greed and corruption.
Financial and economic models proceed from the assumption of PERFECT markets.
How'd that assumption work out.
it seems that its time for ww3 thats the solution for unemployment, the worlds ready now lets roll up them sleaves and get right to it, loose lips sink ships keep em flying , remember the seventh of december, now thiers your solution in a nut shell, all this econimic gibberishs just bull crap !
World War Three when are you coming for me
We've been kicking up dirt, we set the flames free
World War Three Oh no what'll it be,
A house on fire or the rising sea?
Why is the night so still
Why did I take the pill
Because I don't wanna see it at my windowsill
I know you were. I'm just on a roll right now...cause I'm overtired, fed up, undercapitalized and just plain...pissed off.
isnt the world allready at war? lets give it a name! ww3s fine with me, we cant name it herman1
tyree...and i got news for you...we're losing.
China has twice the growth of the U.S. Look around Asia and the Mid East and even parts of Europe...they have infrastructure that we can only dream of...state of the art buildings, high speed rail (not BS high speed like the Acela Express that runs on the same old tracks because we were too cheap to improve them), state of the art telecom, data processing infrastructure...and they're doin it with OUR money.
The only problem is they disregard the safety of their workers on skyscrapers, high speed rail, power plants etc., because there's nothing comparable to OSHA.
Everyone one of these overzealous so-called experts from the Right and from FoxNews should be forced to watch this clip over and over again...And when they finally confess to have had their heads up their ass, force them to watch it again. To think that these people actually make money giving financial advise is criminal!
Haven't you heard? This crisis was created by the UAW and Fannie and Freddie working together in their secret star chamber.
If the magical free market had been TRULY free, none of this would have happened.
So we need to break up the UAW and privatize F&F. Also, we need to dismantle public education, the FDA, HHS and the TSA. Finally, we need to deregulate the consumer credit market.
That'll fix everything.
but Asian workers are demanding a bigger cut of the economic pie...via rising wages...worker protections will be next.
They are evolving...we are devolving.
Watch...they'll improve work safety, work rules and healthcare just as we are unwinding ours.
Heh...I don't think the Chinese governement wants to see 200 or 300 million workers go on strike! LOL!
Let's hope you're right, they're too big to have a Civil War, although Communism could be reimposed on them. However, I doubt it will be any more successful than when the hardliners tried to take over the Kremlin, and the Soviet soldiery who was facing uncertain payment schedules, turned against the hardliners and supported the people. Than we saw Boris Yeltsin climbing on a tank.
I'm still not certain if the hardliners may've been keeping Mikhael Gorbachev prisoner in his "vacation" dumas.
...about the problem, then we'd better start buying up foreign investments, tell the President-elect "never mind the economic incentives for the middle class," and de-regulate like crazy, because as far as Schiff is concerned, the problem has been, in part, regulatory restrictions. His website is chock-full of conservative axioms:
"The President-elect has promised to cage the destructive forces of capitalism, impose more regulation, raise marginal tax rates, increase government spending, and restore prosperity by redistributing wealth from those who earned it to those considered to be more deserving. Like most of his generation, Obama believes that economic growth results from consumer spending, primarily from the middle class. Any policy that keeps the consumers headed to the mall will be promoted.
Unfortunately, while Reagan had a hard time getting his full agenda through Congress, Obama will likely be much more successful. The effort to concentrate more power in Washington will be far more appealing to Congress then Reagan's idea of restoring it to the people.
This sharp contrast in philosophy should not be taken lightly. Reagan looked to unleash the pent-up free market forces that had been smothered by a generation of Great Society reforms and uninterrupted Democratic control of Congress. Today, the public is looking for the Obama Administration to create the growth that the free market has apparently destroyed. The hope that our economy will grow as a result of government spending and micro-management is the most seminal shift in political philosophy since the New Deal."
I'm not sure he's wrong, but if he's right, then we Democrats are on the wrong side of this argument. How does Schiff compare with Krugman? Inquiring minds want to know.
Turns out Shiff is a Freedman-style market fundamentalist. He's not too keen on credit, period. This was a crisis made for him and his philosophical bent. He's like an ornothologist specializing in penguin behavior who discovers an inordinate number of penguins swimming beside the Titanic and alerts the captain that this means there's an iceberg nearby. They don't listen. The rest is history. He was so right! Does this mean that he'd make a great captain? Hardly. He just knows penguins.
The trouble with Shiff is that he somehow thinks that credit and speculation are not natural market entities. Huh?
I dunno, he still kind of sounds schiffless to me.
...what the big problem is. Just let the free market work its magic.
"DOW at 16000"? Cripes, Sylvia Browne could give more accurate guesses.
The only thing I can think when I hear these morons is that they're on the take (in cash, not stock options) from the big corporations and lending institutions. They all knew the crash was coming yet told everyone to keep buying. I would really like to hear what they said about Enwrong and MCI before both went bellyup - they probably said "buy! buy! buy!"
The next chance I get, I'm buying metals, not bonds or savings. Schiff has been right about everything, so I'm willing to bet on his guesses of US$2000-5000 an ounce.
[Deleted. The topic of this post is 'Peter Schiff Was Right.' Anyone else not mentioned in the post is off topic-Sitemonitor]
shitty dye job. Just grow old gracefully. All I think of when I look at you is "Christ! Does he do his own hair, or did he PAY someone to do that?" That, and what a fucking hyena. Oh and that supplyside bullshit? Wrong.
I knew that a lot of people were forecasting problems on the horizon, and I was definitely in their camp, but I never saw anyone put in the middle of all those cheerleaders for the financial bubble who articulated exactly how it was all going to come crumbling down, and put up with so much ridicule in the process. Quite a brave showing I'd say.
He was ridiculed not due to economic theory, which is very supply-sided, and very much like his interviewers, but because of politics; one cannot denigrate the boosh economic "miracle."
I had to check, but I was right. There were four economic Depressions in the 19th century. There were generally called Bank Panics, but were followed by Depressions They seem to fall in 20 year cycles, often due to war, and extravagent investments by the mercantile class, hurting all. These were in 1819, 1836, 1873 and 1893. These were all before the creation of the Federal Reserve.
The first two and possibly the third were only a few years long, and money was released based on HARD METALS. In other words, the poor were shafted again. So in the during the Panic of 1873 a third party was formed called the Greenback party.
What made the 1930's Great Depression last so long, was that it was world-wide, following on World War I, and protectionist policies were in place protecting each other's trade at the expense of everyone else, so ships sat idle at their harbors with no where to go.
You know, I sympathize with people who don't understand money and I understand how they got talked into taking out mortgages they couldn't afford. Years ago I was talked into a bad investment by an agent for one of the most respected firms. I trusted her, figuring she was financially knowlegable and I wasn't. She worked for a well-known firm that was rock solid. You hire someone to help you mange your funds, you don't expect them to lie to you - at least back then I didn't expect it. Things didn't used to work that way.
I eventually got some money back in lawsuit, but I lost A LOT. I am from a poor family and was not at all savvy about investments. I was being told I needed to invest my money to make it grow, that I was losing money by not investing it, that I needed this financial product, yada yada. So I sympathize with people who were targeted by predatory lenders. Those lenders knew exactly who to go after.
But one of my neighbors decided he was a real estate genius and he started buying properties in Florida with some friends three years ago. Now he is walking away from them. Citigroup holds the mortgages. This guy is a rightwing bastard who thought he was going to clean up in the heated market and now he's wiping his hands and walking away. It DOES gall me that so many of these speculators who are responsible for roiling the real estate market and ruining it are now walking away. He believes nothing bad will happen to him because Citigroup is in shambles and thousands upon thousands of others are doing the same thing he is doing. I do resent having to pay for what these idiots did.
Idiots who watch Fox.
I mean, who the hell is Tom Adkins?
Schiff always speaks from a credible place because he's an economist, not a political shill. If we listened to more people like Schiff and Krugman, Americans might still have their retirements.
And you'd get VERY different answers from those two, too. Then what? The rest is...yep...politics.
Schiff seems to be able to predict the future so well because he uses a better model to interpret economic reality - so call Austrian Economics. I recommend doing some reading at the Mises Institute to bone up. Richard Maybury's books are great intros to the topic as well.
I prefer Barely Legal to bone up.
Austrian Economics is essentially allowing the business interests to charge what they think the economy can handle, but a miscalculation, like that of the energy industry in the past two years can be devastating.
Please read about Free Market Economics before attempting to explain it... You do everyone a disservice by not knowing what you are talking about. Austrian Economics does not attempt to 'calculate' what the economy can handle, and therefore, cannot 'miscalculate'. The only 'miscalculations' are by the central planners, and regulators, who cannot possibly know how to cater to the billions of individual consumers, with individual tastes and budgets. I encourage all to read about the Austrian Theory of Economics. It is an eye opener, especially in this day and age.. ManVsBee had the right link - mises.org PEACE!
I am very glad to see his face on your blog. He was right all along, and if Obama really wanted to fix the economy for the betterment of the working man, he would pay more attention to Peter Schiff!
Less regulations isn't the answer, it's part of the problem, and favors the wealthy classes not the working man.
but it is amusing to see you state your opinion as if it were fact. Thanks for playing.
CEO takes a pay cut 2:20
Japan Airlines' CEO slashes his pay below the pay of pilots. CNN's Kyung Lah reports
http://peterrost.blogspot.com/2008/11/ceo-in-...
absolutely phenomenal!!!!!!!!!
I can not believe you guys, you are all rejoicing because the "change" of Obama will take care of all those problems that Peter Schiff is talking about. Yes, you say it is the "conservative" media that is the problem. Surprise! They are all the same, don't be deceived by the left-right fake paradigm, they are the same. McCain or Obama we were going down hill, no mater who was on the helm.
Have you not listen to Peter Schiff? Have you hear what he says about Obama? He thinks that he will make things worse, and the bad news is that he tends to be right.
Have you seen which candidate he supported, do your homework and find that out. The only candidate that had a correct solution to the problem. Starting January new policies will kick that will obliterate our economy, more regulation, more taxes, more intrusion into the personal lives of people, more government on our back, less privacy & more bailout. How do I know? check his voting records . . .
The only candidate with the solution is hypothetical, especially since he seems to be a professional gadfly who belongs to one of the two established parties; the one that lost this year.
Oh, and the economy is already obliterated by conservative laissez-faire philosophy, more regulations will mean less multi-billion dollar bail-outs at tax-payer expense, and the Patriot Act put more intrussion into our personal life and more government on our back.
You are in the wrong website my friend.
Obama voted for the Patriot act (democrat)
Obama voted for the big bailout the second time, once it was loaded with pork.
What makes you think he will not approve these thing in the future. Do your homework first then write . . . I am telling you they are the same . ..
Do your homework, the bail-out HAD to be approved, otherwise we may be in another Depression. I don't like bailing out major corpoations and want them broken up; I want some industries like energy nationalized. As for the Patriot Act I'm against it, but politics is not the art of finding the best solution, but the best compromise. We need the structure to investigate, but not at the expense of civil rights and the FISA courts. Obama voted against the FISA reform due to our new higher-speed communications, but not necessarily ignoring the FISA courts altogether.
In case you never heard, it's part of the job of the chief executive to execute the laws of the land, but not necessarily in the same manner as a predecessor nor a successor.
I was against Obama's vote, and will land on him like a ton of bricks if he makes a habit of it.
At this early point how Obama will handle various aspects is speculative. Obama has already spoken of closing Abu Ghraib and Guantanemo, outlawing torture, and allowing the prisoners to be tried in civilian courts, if the charges seem substanial.
I suggest you study Political Science and History and the Law as I have.
Somebody needs to be educated in economy. Listed to what Peter Schiff says about the bail out, it just helps the rich, THE BAILOUT DID NOT NEEDED TO BE APPROVED. Companies that are not efficient need to disappear the competent companies will pick them up and we will have competent corporations again. But helping the corrupt and bad companies only encourages their existence. Unless of course your corrupts friends at the big corporations had to suffer.
After seeing in youtube mr. schiff then search for Jim Rogers. Jim Rogers just recorded a whole one hour program on Bloomberg. Listen to every word he is saying, maybe that will take away all the fake ideas that the media is implanting in your brain.
Open your eyes, don't let the massive media brain wash you, dare to think! That is something we are missing in today's society . . .
And what happens to their health insurance policies, their pensions, their workers too advance in age to be reeducated into a new job field, those simply too old to be considered for job interviews for no other reason than their over 45 or 50?
You would not only transfer our entire manufacturing base overseas, but also those that profit from it, if everyone went to work for Nissan, Toyata etc.
Then we'll simply have to let people sicken and die, or nationalize health, another big ticket item.
And after we bail out corporations I say, fire the CEO's deny Golden Parachutes, and break them up into smaller units.
As for my news it's primarily the BBC and PBS, most national news is little more that infotainment. And I'm a pack-rat; I still have the bulk of my textbooks from when I was in college.
If people suggest someone like Ron Paul had SOME answers, but not ALL answers I might be more inclined to listen. But I question his knowledge of history, politics and economics beyond his doctor's office, which is just a slightly different version of checkbook economics, that does not apply once you get to the macroeconomical level.
I'm gone for the night; time to consume mass quanities.
Oh, and I haven't heard anything about Obama's stance on NSL's and their abuse by the FBI. That's a particular peeve of mine.
There's also the NSA data sweeping and I think Verizon, bugging the telephone calls of their customers. That doesn't fall exactly under the Patriot Act or FISA, and although important, it outside the subject of the thread which is the bail-outs.
Actually, now that I think of it, wasn't it AT&T that was bugging their customers?
on the wrong website? Jesus, that's been a waste of 3 or 4 years...nice of some guy who signed up a mere 8 hours ago is hipping you to that. You should thank him, and we'll see you over at redstate
I would say he should be typing his comments at Redstate with his comments supporting the argument that government is the problem, and Laissez-Faire the solution.
Actually I was seriously considering voting for Bryan Moore the Socialist, but decided the election looked close. So after being initially an Edwards supporter, than a Hillary, I voted for Obama. Like Bubba he appears to be a pragmatist, which can be infuriating when he doesn't emphasize the same issues you would. But as the great-great-great-great grand nephew of Henry Clay, I can't disparge the art of the compromise.
So any of you young ladies out there, COMPROMISE ME...COMPROMISE ME!!!
I have been following this website for a long time. I always enjoyed the blog entries finally I decided to sign up and "participate". Reedstate was weighted in the balance and was found wanted big time, they won't listen or hear about other points of view. What I am afraid is that some people are becoming so narrow minded they won't even examine their ideas. Like the saying says "don't show me the facts you may confuse me". What is wrong with showing other paradigms, it is healthy to debate as long as it is done with sound arguments and logic. . .
Login or Register to post comments.