The man that wrote Crash Proof and The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets is interviewed by Russian TV.
For those who think he sounds crazy, refer to past statements of his that were laughed off as crazy that turned out to be true:
Peter Schiff Was Right 2006-2007
Schiff explains how he made his correct predictions:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
No, Peter, the crisis is not the result of the government. It is the result of private, unregulated lending companies setting up "ponzi" schemes and the like to make a quick buck.
No, Peter, personal debt is not a bad thing if people don't lose their jobs. 4 MILLION JOBS, DOWNWARD PUSHES ON WAGES, PETER!
No, Peter, we don't need more saving, but we do. What we need is repsonsible saving coupled with JOBS THAT ARE NOT SHIPPED OVERSEAS FOR SLAVE LABOR!
No, Peter, government didn't create the problem. It was the private companies that were unregulated that caused the problem.
No, Peter, the spending and thus circulation of tax money DOES cause an increase in wealth, because for each dollar spent, that dollar passes through tens of thousands of hands.
Yes, Peter, the trillions spent on the Iraq war.
No, Peter, the world is not suffering because we are not paying back our loans. They are suffering because the economy is in depression. Oh, wait! You were talking about rich foreigners, not everyday foreigners working in factories!
3 trillion for the Iraq war so far. No wonder we had to borrow so much money! The budget for social services was balanced under Gingrich in the 90s when social services cost just under 1 trillion. Is government spending therefore the problem? NO! Peter! It is the trillions we spent on the war and the deregulation that go us into this mess.
Third video:
Chinese have a vested interest in buying debt to buoy the economy.
People worldwide have a vested interst in buoying the American dollar so that it doesn't collapse.
Couple these two phenomena with the government interventions, and you have what you have today.
"Not enough production". Well, at least he got something right, even though he said it without focusing on slave wages or outsourcing.
"Absence of lending standards". Yep, Peter, thanks for focusing in on the deregulation that caused the problem.
Wow, Ben Stein was really stupid. The housing market is a small blip? Was he crazy? The housing market, coupled with the car market, are twin pillars of the purchasing economy.
I guess that second video goes to show that the only person who is stupider than a libertarian is a conservative.
"No, Peter, the crisis is not the result of the government. It is the result of private, unregulated lending companies setting up "ponzi" schemes and the like to make a quick buck."
The US Government is a ponzi scheme. It requires more debt to pay past debt and this only works as long as there is someone else willing to buy treasury bonds. Once noone will buy treasury bonds, the ponzi scheme falls apart. Just like with Madoff.
"No, Peter, personal debt is not a bad thing if people don't lose their jobs. 4 MILLION JOBS, DOWNWARD PUSHES ON WAGES, PETER!"
People are going to lose their jobs anyway making personal debt a very bad thing as they will not be able to pay for it.
"What we need is repsonsible saving coupled with JOBS THAT ARE NOT SHIPPED OVERSEAS FOR SLAVE LABOR!"
Agreed.
"No, Peter, the world is not suffering because we are not paying back our loans. They are suffering because the economy is in depression. Oh, wait! You were talking about rich foreigners, not everyday foreigners working in factories!"
He is talking about everyday foreigners in factories. China is pushing banks to lend money to small to medium sized business to help then survive through the recession. The recession in the US is a symptom of the problem with the US dollar. When he comments on the world suffering because the US can't pay back its debt, he's saying that if the world didn't need to lend the US all of this money, they would be able to use it themselves allowing their economies to grow much more. Have you heard his analogy of the 5 Chinese and 1 American stuck on an island?
"3 trillion for the Iraq war so far. No wonder we had to borrow so much money! The budget for social services was balanced under Gingrich in the 90s when social services cost just under 1 trillion. Is government spending therefore the problem? NO! Peter! It is the trillions we spent on the war and the deregulation that go us into this mess."
Noone is disputing. Though, there is a line of thought out there that the tech bubble support the budget surplus in the late 90s. Once this burst all of that revenue disappeared. Where did the tech bubble come from? Greenspans low interest rates, just like the housing bubble. This isn't something I want to argue, the government did well given their situation to balance the budget.
""Not enough production". Well, at least he got something right, even though he said it without focusing on slave wages or outsourcing."
Thats because while you think the government should enact protectionist policies, the Austrians solution would be to implement a sound currency. Schiff will always refer to the gutted manufacturing sector as one of the largest problems for the US, just your solutions differ.
""Absence of lending standards". Yep, Peter, thanks for focusing in on the deregulation that caused the problem."
Lending standards were lax because of easy money. The market allows for lax lending standards under this condition, with sound money, there would be sound lending standards set by the market.
"Chinese have a vested interest in buying debt to buoy the economy."
Thats funny. The Chinese have a vested interest in providing Americans money to buy their products...why don't the Chinese use the money to buy the products themselves? Isn't this middle man just a waste of space and wealth?
"People worldwide have a vested interst in buoying the American dollar so that it doesn't collapse."
Until they can get out of it. The predicted run on the dollar hasn't occured yet. We will see.
"Couple these two phenomena with the government interventions, and you have what you have today."
Are you saying government intervention did something bad?
"Wow, Ben Stein was really stupid. The housing market is a small blip? Was he crazy? The housing market, coupled with the car market, are twin pillars of the purchasing economy."
Remember, Stein was in the main stream at that point. Schiff was the only one warning about it.
"I guess that second video goes to show that the only person who is stupider than a libertarian is a conservative."
"I guess that second video goes to show that the only person who is stupider than a libertarian is a conservative."
What about liberaltards? (i'm making fun of you. I make myself laugh. Ha ha ha.)
"The US Government is a ponzi scheme. It requires more debt to pay past debt and this only works as long as there is someone else willing to buy treasury bonds. Once noone will buy treasury bonds, the ponzi scheme falls apart. Just like with Madoff."
You didn't address my point. The government collapsing is not the cause of the crisis. It is the 700 billion worth of failed PERSONAL loans.
"People are going to lose their jobs anyway making personal debt a very bad thing as they will not be able to pay for it."
LOL, so poverty is inevitable?
"Agreed."
Okay, how would we do that, Josh? I'm more interested in the second problem, because I think it this the primary cause of the failed loans.
"He is talking about everyday foreigners in factories. China is pushing banks to lend money to small to medium sized business to help then survive through the recession. The recession in the US is a symptom of the problem with the US dollar. When he comments on the world suffering because the US can't pay back its debt, he's saying that if the world didn't need to lend the US all of this money, they would be able to use it themselves allowing their economies to grow much more. Have you heard his analogy of the 5 Chinese and 1 American stuck on an island?"
And who are they going to sell to, Josh? The Chinese economy doesn't have a strong spending class. Much of its growth has been from American factories using slave labor. They'd need another 20 years of domestic investment and growth - WITHOUT AMERICAN CORPORATIONS COMPETITING WITH THEM - to develop consumers who can retract in times of recession and just buy Chinese. Until that time, China is the United States.
"Noone is disputing. Though, there is a line of thought out there that the tech bubble support the budget surplus in the late 90s. Once this burst all of that revenue disappeared. Where did the tech bubble come from? Greenspans low interest rates, just like the housing bubble. This isn't something I want to argue, the government did well given their situation to balance the budget."
Independent banks would have done the same. Speculation is not the result of the FED.
"Thats because while you think the government should enact protectionist policies, the Austrians solution would be to implement a sound currency. Schiff will always refer to the gutted manufacturing sector as one of the largest problems for the US, just your solutions differ."
No. It is not sound currency versus protectionist policies. IT IS PROTECTIONIST POLICIES PERIOD. The problem here is not the fiat currency, but the deregulation of the financial markets and the use of slave labor. Nor does Schiff ever talk about jobs directly. He talks about "production" and "saving", which are as far from the problem as you can get. His suggestions are AFTER THE FACT solutions. He doesn't give a shit that wages are dropping, because he champions free markets. He champions the use of slave labor. Hence his island allegory.
"Lending standards were lax because of easy money. The market allows for lax lending standards under this condition, with sound money, there would be sound lending standards set by the market."
The lending standards were lax across the board under the Bush regime. It was an understanding. Bush would not back up any regulations of government. WHICH MEANS, it was YOUR fault.
"Thats funny. The Chinese have a vested interest in providing Americans money to buy their products...why don't the Chinese use the money to buy the products themselves? Isn't this middle man just a waste of space and wealth?"
It might happen. The Chinese and their 500 chinese dollars a year in disposable income might be able to spend. LOL.
"Until they can get out of it. The predicted run on the dollar hasn't occured yet. We will see."
As soon as there is a run, they lose everything. Its a fundamental contradiction. It would be like destroying all the gold in the world at the same time. If the Chinese had enough healthy Chinese companies, I bet they would have already stopped buying American debt. But they don't, which is why they have only eased.
"Are you saying government intervention did something bad?"
Not in this instance. I was just stating the facts.
"What about liberaltards? (i'm making fun of you. I make myself laugh. Ha ha ha.)"
No, conservatives are still stupider.
"You didn't address my point. The government collapsing is not the cause of the crisis. It is the 700 billion worth of failed PERSONAL loans."
Ok, I never said personal debt wasn't a cause of the crisis so far...
"LOL, so poverty is inevitable?"
The standard of living in the US is going to decrease significantly.
"Okay, how would we do that, Josh? I'm more interested in the second problem, because I think it this the primary cause of the failed loans."
Labour cannot price themselves out of the market, but it wouldn't matter if their was a gold standard. The low price of labour would be ok, because the purchasing power would be so much more.
"And who are they going to sell to, Josh? The Chinese economy doesn't have a strong spending class."
Thats false. The World Bank has the Chinese economy ranked second behind the US. Once the dollar collapses, the purchasing power of the Chinese currency is going to increase.
"Independent banks would have done the same. Speculation is not the result of the FED."
The great amount of speculation with borrowed money is much easier with artificially low interest rates. You have not yet, in all of our arguments told me why that is false.
"He doesn't give a shit that wages are dropping"
He probably doesn't pay as much attention to wages as he does the purchasing power of those wages, because that is what really matters.
"He champions the use of slave labor. Hence his island allegory."
Wow, you're gonna have to back this one up a little more. His island allegory definitely does not promote slave labour.
"The lending standards were lax across the board under the Bush regime. It was an understanding. Bush would not back up any regulations of government."
They have been lax since Greenspan because he allowed for easy credit along with Democratic policies. Again, Bush pushed for regulation of the mortage industry and the Democrats fought back. I don't know why we are fighting this though, I feel dirty having to defend Bush. I'd like you to point out a single instance of deregulation in the financial markets since Bush came into office.
"It might happen. The Chinese and their 500 chinese dollars a year in disposable income might be able to spend."
In 2005 the World Bank rate the Chinese economy the second largest in the world. The purchasing power of those 500 chinese dollars is much larger than the exchange rate allows for due to a very low cost of living in China. Shopping is their 4th favorite hobby.
"As soon as there is a run, they lose everything. Its a fundamental contradiction. It would be like destroying all the gold in the world at the same time. If the Chinese had enough healthy Chinese companies, I bet they would have already stopped buying American debt. But they don't, which is why they have only eased."
I'm not saying they want to sell their dollars, but market forces are going to bring it fruition regardless. Watch the latest video I posted.
"The standard of living in the US is going to decrease significantly."
I'm sorry, why do you think it will stop? There are six billion plus people on PLANET EARTH. A huge labor pool. Why do you think wages won't drop so far as to cause a revolutionary state?
"Labour cannot price themselves out of the market, but it wouldn't matter if their was a gold standard. The low price of labour would be ok, because the purchasing power would be so much more."
I think you are living in a dream world. The Chinese and Mexicans are the reason the corporations left America: to pay slave wages. I see no end to the decline. Increased purchasing power will only lead to more searches for slave labor, which is ample.
"Thats false. The World Bank has the Chinese economy ranked second behind the US. Once the dollar collapses, the purchasing power of the Chinese currency is going to increase."
The output of production is second, not the purchasing power per capita.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity
China has one of the lowest PPP on the planet.
"Wow, you're gonna have to back this one up a little more. His island allegory definitely does not promote slave labour."
He promotes the American workers a a fat pig that does not deserve his or her high wages. He portrays the the other countries as fighting against the American worker to increase their wages, when, in the long run, this only means that everyone will be making low wages, as the capitalists, like the pig Scniff, drive a wedge between the unionized and non-unionized workers via propaganda. His allegory IS THAT PROPAGANDA>
"In 2005 the World Bank rate the Chinese economy the second largest in the world. The purchasing power of those 500 chinese dollars is much larger than the exchange rate allows for due to a very low cost of living in China. Shopping is their 4th favorite hobby.
"
Lie. It's the favorite hobby of the elite, not the average Chinese.
"The number of people working in the manufacturing sector in China is also far higher than most analysts have estimated, according Banister, a consultant working with Javelin Investments in Beijing, China. At least 109 million Chinese are working in the manufacturing sector, far more than the 83 million reported last year. Banister says 109 million is a conservative number. "
Yup, I think the Chinese have a basic interest in buoying the American economy.
"An average Chinese wage of $0.57 per hour -- or $104 per month -- is about 3 percent of the average U.S. manufacturing worker's wage, according to data collected by Banister. "Equally as striking, regional competitors in the newly industrialized economies of Asia had, on average, manufacturing labor costs more than 10 times those for China's manufacturing workers, and Mexico and Brazil had manufacturing labor costs about four times those for China's manufacturing employees.""
104 dollars a month multiplied by an exchange rate of 8 = 832 chinese dollars of month. WHICH IS EXACTLY ALMOST ENOUGH TO COVER BASIC COSTS> I.E. NOT MUCH DISPOSABLE INCOME>
"I'm sorry, why do you think it will stop? There are six billion plus people on PLANET EARTH. A huge labor pool. Why do you think wages won't drop so far as to cause a revolutionary state?"
You quoted me saying that the standard of living in the US is going to drop, and then you asked me this? I never said they wouldn't...jeez, I follow a guy who finished his last book by saying "let the revolution begin!"
"I think you are living in a dream world. The Chinese and Mexicans are the reason the corporations left America: to pay slave wages. I see no end to the decline. Increased purchasing power will only lead to more searches for slave labor, which is ample."
Well, the intelligent will always prey on the less intelligent, not that its right. The problem is that, even with all of the slave wages, the trade deficit in the US is massive, meaning massive amount of wealth is leaving the US into other countries. So the system is going to collapse.
Economies based on sound money and free market economics theoretically would have no need for slave wage labor in order to support itself. Again, though, I don't have enough knowledge to fully support this argument yet though.
"The output of production is second, not the purchasing power per capita."
In the long run, the output of production is what matters because production brings wealth. The problem is that the Chinese is lending all kinds of money from the US to allow the US to purchase that wealth. So essentially, China is buying their own goods after paying for their production and then giving them to the US. How much richer would they be if they just kept the goods they're producing? Its hard to know until it happens. The problem is there will be steep recession before the change will take place and noone wants that.
"He promotes the American workers a a fat pig that does not deserve his or her high wages. He portrays the the other countries as fighting against the American worker to increase their wages, when, in the long run, this only means that everyone will be making low wages, as the capitalists, like the pig Scniff, drive a wedge between the unionized and non-unionized workers via propaganda. His allegory IS THAT PROPAGANDA>"
You're taking a lot out of it that isn't there. He's not talking about wages at all. All he is saying is that the world is working to feed the American. If the American didn't exist, or was taken out of the equation, the world would have a lot more to feed itself.
"You quoted me saying that the standard of living in the US is going to drop, and then you asked me this? I never said they wouldn't...jeez, I follow a guy who finished his last book by saying "let the revolution begin!""
They are all interrelated. And, no, your guy doesn't believe in "revolution". He believes in "rolling back" everything to a pre-New Deal, pre-FED state. That's not revolution.
`They are all interrelated. And, no, your guy doesn't believe in "revolution". He believes in "rolling back" everything to a pre-New Deal, pre-FED state. That's not revolution.`
Its not your marxist revolution but there is a whole other study of history, Whig history, that suggests humanity is on an inevitable path to greater liberty. Whether that`s true, I don`t know. But yes, it would be revolution as it would be a removal of the current form of government and the establishment of a new form of government.
"Its not your marxist revolution but there is a whole other study of history, Whig history, that suggests humanity is on an inevitable path to greater liberty. Whether that`s true, I don`t know. But yes, it would be revolution as it would be a removal of the current form of government and the establishment of a new form of government."
Uck. Two socialists and two almost-libertarians (Ron Paul is a fake)arguing in Congress about matters that probably won't change without radical action. Do you understand the severity of the economy that will be needed for Paul's and Scniff's arguments to lead to fruitition peacefully?
Post a Comment