Thursday, August 6, 2009

Schiff on Morning Joe

13 comments:

Christopher said...

Never said a word about wages. Disingenuous.

Christopher said...

Suggestion that American workers are going to have accept China level wages to create wealth in the United State is in line with Schiff's status as a capitalist running dog.

Christopher said...

*Sigh* He must be an idiot, because the Chinese have low taxes and low wages.

Josh said...

There's only so much time on these shows.

If you want to criticize him, criticize what he said, not what he didn't say.

As well, you might want to read his books.

The Chinese do not have low taxes.

Christopher said...

"There's only so much time on these shows."

So he must never tackle the hard issues and always say the bloody same thing over and over again with no variation?

"If you want to criticize him, criticize what he said, not what he didn't say. "

Nope. When he rambles on about the financial system and the FED, but only comments on job flight in passing, he opens himself up for charges of talking-headery, fluffery, or incompetence.


"The Chinese do not have low taxes."

Source?

Josh said...

"So he must never tackle the hard issues and always say the bloody same thing over and over again with no variation? "

Peter Schiff will talk about all of the issues, but he will always talk about them in relation to the principles and laws which govern the economy. Which to you, will always sound like the same thing over and over again. In his editorials, his radio show, and his video blogs he talks about everything, but on a cable TV show, he's going to focus on that which he feels is most important.

"When he rambles on about the financial system and the FED, but only comments on job flight in passing"

To him they are one in the same. In a healthy economy, people will have jobs, he talks about what it takes to have a healthy economy.

Christopher said...

"Peter Schiff will talk about all of the issues, but he will always talk about them in relation to the principles and laws which govern the economy."

There are no laws which "govern the economy".

"Which to you, will always sound like the same thing over and over again. In his editorials, his radio show, and his video blogs he talks about everything, but on a cable TV show, he's going to focus on that which he feels is most important."

Nope. In that interview he bit his tongue on talking about jobs. Why? Because he was on national television. The most I've heard him say on the subject is "we need to make something" and "they are going to have to".

"To him they are one in the same. In a healthy economy, people will have jobs, he talks about what it takes to have a healthy economy."

That's very nice, but he has never and will never comment on wages, unions, and the other issues that bring down the standard of living.

Josh said...

"There are no laws which "govern the economy". "

Yes, there is.

"The most I've heard him say on the subject is "we need to make something" and "they are going to have to"."

Yes, and he knows that the only way to bring manufacturing back to the US in a big way is to pull back government regulations, labor laws, and taxes. Of course, this is unacceptable to you, yet you offer no other real solution except more oppression.

"That's very nice, but he has never and will never comment on wages, unions, and the other issues that bring down the standard of living."

Yes, unions do bring down the standard of living in the long run. But its not the fault of the union worker, its the fault of the government for passing legislation which forces individuals into unions.

Christopher said...

"Yes, there is."

Nope. The economies of pre-capitalism were much different. And even the fact that I can talk about pre-capitalist economies should make you pause. IT MEANS THAT THERE IS CHANGE IN ECONOMICS< THAT WHAT IS NOW WILL NOT ALWAYS BE.

"Yes, and he knows that the only way to bring manufacturing back to the US in a big way is to pull back government regulations, labor laws, and taxes. Of course, this is unacceptable to you, yet you offer no other real solution except more oppression."

Yup, he thinks slave wages are the answer. For me, that will lead to revolution.

"Yes, unions do bring down the standard of living in the long run. But its not the fault of the union worker, its the fault of the government for passing legislation which forces individuals into unions."

You are not making an argument. You have simply made a statement.

High union wages drive up the economy's average wage. It is a fact. Unions are almost completely ineffective if they have no teeth. It's a fact. Those who believe in "repealing the union laws" are worst kind of right wingers. They consciously strive toward revolution and dictatorship, even as they apparently spouting the rhetoric of liberty.

Josh said...

"The economies of pre-capitalism were much different. And even the fact that I can talk about pre-capitalist economies should make you pause. IT MEANS THAT THERE IS CHANGE IN ECONOMICS< THAT WHAT IS NOW WILL NOT ALWAYS BE."

They were much different; they were interfered with by government in a much more direct and violent way. But the laws of the economy have not changed. The Roman empire suffered from high inflation via coin devaluation 2000 years ago, and they inflated their currency to fund their military. The laws of physics do not change even though we interact with our environment in very different way than we ever have before. Economics is very much the same way.

"Yup, he thinks slave wages are the answer. For me, that will lead to revolution."

Government oppression seems to be leading to a revolution for a lot of people who aren't you. You just don't agree with the one's doing the revolting. They're ignorant, red-neck, racist, right-wing extremists. Yet if it was unions starting militias propagandizing against corporations, you'd completely support them. Hypocrite. Of course that won't happen, the unions carry much more power than the corporations and will never have any need to revolt against them.

"High union wages drive up the economy's average wage."

That's bullshit and you can't prove it. Correlation does not equal causation. Wages were going up before the 30s.

"Those who believe in "repealing the union laws" are worst kind of right wingers."

Yes, thinking individuals should not be forced into a union, paying union fees, playing by union rules if they want to work for someone I guess is very much against liberty. LOL.

Christopher said...

"They were much different; they were interfered with by government in a much more direct and violent way. "

Could you tell me why they were much more direct and violent? Also, what was the resulting political economy?

"Government oppression seems to be leading to a revolution for a lot of people who aren't you. You just don't agree with the one's doing the revolting."

I think the one's doing the revolting are the ones responsible for the government being the way it is.

"They're ignorant, red-neck, racist, right-wing extremists."

That's right, and it is their fucking politics that caused fucking 911 in the fucking first place. So, sorry if I am not going to turn around and rain praise on them now that the Patriot Act is a reality.

"Yet if it was unions starting militias propagandizing against corporations, you'd completely support them."

Yup.

"Hypocrite."

Try causing 911 and then turning around and blaming the result on democrats and the left. That is the height of hypocrisy. FUCKING REPUBLICONS>

"Of course that won't happen, the unions carry much more power than the corporations and will never have any need to revolt against them."

Interesting that you say that in an era of corporate flight to powerless labor pools.

"That's bullshit and you can't prove it. Correlation does not equal causation. Wages were going up before the 30s."

Yup, and the unions were violently striking all during that time. Thus, you can not arbitrarily separate the two. There is a direct causal relationship between unionization and the average wage. All you have to do is work in an industry to know this or know people to know this. If person X is making 20 bucks an hour at factory X, and factory X needs 500 of the towns total population of 1000, any other job will have to offer higher wages to compete for the remaining workers. It is simple economics, Josh. Not bullshit at all.

"Yes, thinking individuals should not be forced into a union, paying union fees, playing by union rules if they want to work for someone I guess is very much against liberty. LOL."

Yes, that is right. Because the alternative is being forced to work for low wages, paying corporate taxes that creates a pro-profit political apparatus, and playing by capitalist rules is very much all for liberty! LOL!

Josh said...

"I think the one's doing the revolting are the ones responsible for the government being the way it is."

Stop changing the subject.

"So, sorry if I am not going to turn around and rain praise on them now that the Patriot Act is a reality. "

I'm not asking you to rain praise on anyone.

"Try causing 911 and then turning around and blaming the result on democrats and the left. That is the height of hypocrisy. FUCKING REPUBLICONS>"

Republicans and Democrats had a hand in the cause of 911. The democrats under Clinton did nothing to make anyone in the middle east like america. Meddling in the middle east his a historical past time of the political elite in the US.

"Interesting that you say that in an era of corporate flight to powerless labor pools."

Their flight is a demonstration of the power of the unions. Unions are so powerful they've pushed companies out of North America simply so that they can remain competitive. Companies that would have otherwise been happy to stay in America and pay competitive wages.

"All you have to do is work in an industry to know this or know people to know this. If person X is making 20 bucks an hour at factory X, and factory X needs 500 of the towns total population of 1000, any other job will have to offer higher wages to compete for the remaining workers. It is simple economics, Josh. Not bullshit at all."

I'd say wages were already going up, but probably wouldn't have at the same pace. I'd say there was a bubble with the price of labour in the US caused by the unfair union laws. The price of labour in the US is imploding now all over the place and unemployment is sky-rocketing. The Chinese workers, the ones who are producing real goods, they're the one's whose lives are on the way up. They're benefiting from this. The average american worker will never earn the amount of purchasing power they had at the precipice of this labour bubble again until the Fed stops printing money and the government stops spending beyond its means.

"Because the alternative is being forced to work for low wages"

No. Why not allow individuals the choice of joining a union or not? If the Union was the place to earn the most money, wouldn't everyone be naturally drawn to the Union? Why do you need to force people?

Christopher said...

"Stop changing the subject."

It's not changing the subject. Your group is responsible for American jobs being in China. It is a fact.

"I'm not asking you to rain praise on anyone."

Ron Paul is a cause of the Patriot Act. Him lending his political capital and hence legitimacy to the Republican party helped pass that atrocity.

"Republicans and Democrats had a hand in the cause of 911. The democrats under Clinton did nothing to make anyone in the middle east like america. Meddling in the middle east his a historical past time of the political elite in the US."

Yes, the Blue Dogs are fuckwit Republicons. Democrats in Name Only.

"Their flight is a demonstration of the power of the unions. Unions are so powerful they've pushed companies out of North America simply so that they can remain competitive. Companies that would have otherwise been happy to stay in America and pay competitive wages."

But not powerful enough to force them to stay.

"I'd say wages were already going up,"

They were inching up incrementally due to union pressure, not a natural pressure in the economy.

"but probably wouldn't have at the same pace."

Correct answer.

"I'd say there was a bubble with the price of labour in the US caused by the unfair union laws."

Oh, so now you want to compare increases in wages to inflation. I see how you operate.

"The price of labour in the US is imploding now all over the place and unemployment is sky-rocketing. The Chinese workers, the ones who are producing real goods, they're the one's whose lives are on the way up. They're benefiting from this. The average american worker will never earn the amount of purchasing power they had at the precipice of this labour bubble again until the Fed stops printing money and the government stops spending beyond its means. "

I have no idea what bad financial policy has to do with corporations wanting to pay slave wages in China, Josh. American workers are not going to make the same wages as before, because they have unwittingly allowed the corporations a political blank slate to move where ever they want, to immorally pay slave wages. If the current purchasing power parity of the current Chinese worker is the best the working class has to look forward to, then in the future there is going to be a genuine worker-lead revolution. One profit gets bored or saturated with the current level of profits, its shareholders, investors, and owners will demand more. This will further push wages toward the poverty line and toward a revolutionary political climate.