i think we need a nation debt tax,it will be like federal an state tax,it will come out of our paychecks,and be a perment tax,and all that money goes paying down are debt,to coutrys we owe money to,like china,and have a bill statement everymonth showing who we paid each month, and i think its good for us,to chip in and pay down our debt to other coutry,the new debt tax is good
@racheljoy8407, Hahahahahaha, I hope that your post was sarcasm. Paying more tax to reduce debt is like throwing gasoline on a fire to extinguish it, AS LONG AS THE MONEY YOU PAY IS FIAT CURRENCY. Watch 'The Creature from Jekyll Island' and get yourself an education.
Peter you lost me with the rant on "the estate tax." Who gives a crap if a rich kid has to work for something. The tax doesnt even start till the 2 million dollar mark.
Warren Buffett owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses. Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out. He also is planning investments in ethanol giant ADM and government-contracting leviathan General Dynamics. If your businesses’ revenue comes from the U.S. Treasury, of course you want more wealth.
How come people always think capitalists or pro free market people are always very uncaring/rude/ empathy lacking.. I think it couldn't be more opposite.
@brothermikefan People who have things of their own want to share them. People who have only shared things, or through some kind of resistance receive what they have, turn pack rat/territorial and act like jerk offs not because they are jerk offs (like a jerk off capitalist would act like a jerk off because he's a jerk off), but they act like jerk offs because of their situation.
I wish our world leaders we're like Peter. Unfortunately we elect socialist extremists who believe in survival of the weakest. Keep up the good work Peter.
Let the people control their own lives, future and capital..Please, liberals can not even begin to think of freedom on that level. Govt, Govt, govt that is their mindless answer.
Talk about a straw-man argument. And even were there no government (or the primitivist Rambo world that you see existing in the absence of central authority) to protect the rights of man, that would not render the concept of rights meaningless. We libertarian-minded people recognize only negative rights, namely the freedom from incursions into our rights. The modern left recognizes "positive" rights, i.e. right to healthcare, food, shelter etc.
The fundamental problem w so-called positive rights is that they specifically require the trampling of the far more important negative rights in order to fulfill them. Namely, the fruits of one persons labor must be confiscated with the threat of force in order to be redistributed according to your "positive" rights. However, when asked where rights derive from, the positive rightists have no coherent or systematic way to explain, while negative rightists can justly cite how man is born free.
@Wreckoncile That's great. But in the jungle if I want your fruit I can cut your head off. I have that right. Correct? Or is that a question even worth asking? See my point? Governments protect rights. We all get together and agree on what rights are.
@brothermikefan The problem with that example of rights is that no right can exist that would require/permit taking of another's rights. Namely, I have a right to life and the fruits of my labor (in the case of your example, the fruit I found/picked). If you were to cut my head off, you would be violating my rights to life and prperty. That is the case against positive rights. A commodity (i.e. health insurance) cannot be a right because it requires taking from another in order to fulfill it
My point is that we dont live in a jungle. We give people the right to eat using other peoples' money even though in the jungle each of us WOULD have that right anyway. (by you keeping that fruit away from me you're negatively affecting my god-given right to have nourishment and survive.) We live in a civilized society that maintains a certain standard of living. We do not have unemployed savages running around using their ingenutity, innovation and talent marauding us and robbing our houses.
I disagree. What right is there that you must be nourished and to survive? Where do you think civilization and our standard of living come from? It comes from capitalism (individual property rights with profit/loss motives).
@whitechocolatespace What right is there that you must be nourished and to survive? It's found in our DNA. It's called freedom from death. In the jungle anything goes as long as you EAT. We just happen to be in a civilized jungle where the poor are just a few meals away from being savages. We pay a premium to prevent that from happening as a way of maintaining our standard of living.
@whitechocolatespace The point is there is no such thing as a "right" in the jungle. The word has no meaning. Survival is all that matters. Think about it. THE JUNGLE. Ever watched those nature programs? It's nothing but creatures EATING other creaures. If that isn't the most basic right for living on this planet then I don't know what else is. According to nature, we have the right to kill to eat.
@Brothermikefan: Sure there is. There is the right to self-ownership and homesteading. In the jungle if someone or thing wants to kill me, I have the right to defend myself. And if I find a piece of fruit in the jungle, and nobody owns anything, then the fruit is my property and therefore have the right to defend against someone stealing it. Sure, in the jungle, others are free to try to kill me and steal my stuff. I'm also free to stop them.
@whitechocolatespace You don't have a right unless there's a third party there to decide who's "right" as it were. Nature doesn't care who's right or who's wrong. Do you think the cockroaches feel guilty about stealing? Is there such a thing as stealing? One takes in order to survive and the other misses out in order to try harder or die. There's no right or wrong. Just survival.
@brothermikefan Then you can start tacking on a bunch of other rights that you won't find in the jungle. Some of them require positive action or else they will be in violation by default. Things like the right to your health. (it's illegal to refuse anyone at an emergency room.) This costs money. We create governments to protect rights so we give them the power to take our money and provide Medicare to those who's rights are about to be violated. It's all relative.
@brothermikefan: That's because you don't think jungle survival in terms of enforcing your right to self-ownership and private property. Those are nature-given, just like all the animals. Those need to be exercised in order to survive. And when a government protects those rights, standards of survival rise as a result.
@whitechocolatespace The right to private property is only a psychological phenomenon. It has no meaning until it's validated or enforced by an outside entity. It's like the right to privacy. Does that have any meaning in the jungle? How about the right to a fair trial? You may feel very strongly about these but the trees and the grass and the water couldn't give two craps about what you think your rights are. Only when we create governments do we define what principles are worth defending.
@brothermikefan: No it's not. You don't have to go to the jungle to have it validated. Go try to take a pit bull's dinner away from him and see what happens. Try to explain his snarls aren't validated because there's no government that entitles him to his food.
@whitechocolatespace How do you know I wasn't hungrier than the dog? I could have been snarling just as loud. In the jungle I have just as much right to that dinner as he does because in the jungle we all have to eat. I don't care if he procured it himself. I'm procuring it from HIM. That's where human philosophy has to step in and set the ground rules as to who deserves what and why.
@brothermikefan Just like the dog wouldn't hesitate to take my dinner away from me in the jungle. He knows nothing of private property. It's not a natural thing. It's a human construct. There are no rights in nature other than to be allowed to eat each other the best way you know how. There is no morality other than the morality we impose on ourselves through govt (see: religion) We can change what is right or wrong. We have in the past. Laws are relative to the times blah blah it's getting late
@brothermikefan One last thing. I don't know if you've seen the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy" but it revolves around a tribe of Bushmen in South Africa who have no idea of the concept of private property whatsoever. They are nomadic and they live off the land. They carry very little around because they assume that everything they need will generally be there when they need it. Something to think about.
@brothermikefan Oh, my point was that they would laugh at you if you said you had private ownership rights to a piece of land or a worthless gold disc in your pocket.
@brothermikefan: (last post - you can have the last say) You're missing my point if you think that you also have rights just because you're hungrier. The dog snarling was to illustrate that even animals understand that their kill (food) is their property and are willing to defend it. I know what premise you're trying to set up: Only gov't can determine and bestow rights. And by illustrating the lack of 'rights', as you define it, you create your jungle to prove your point. Ok, have at it.
@Brothermikefan: Sure you have the physical ability to steal and harm others. But just because you can doesn't mean it's a right. A right cannot exist if it violates the right of another. Yes, gov't should protect rights. Outside of private property and self-ownership, it's a difficult case to establish other 'rights' for some without the use of coersion on others.
Yes. Today's so called conservatism is actually classical liberalism and today's liberalism is actually more akin to old-world conservatism.
When I look at an iron mine, I see progress, man shaping his world. A modern liberal says this is wrong. A modern liberal hates progress unless is it in their narrow view of what makes up progress.
I like free markets rather than the status quo government control. Government control is what we've had since feudalism. Progressives ARE the conservatives.
The fundamentals of the USD are bad, but compared to what? Look at some of the other countries & you might find that it is not all that bad. Europe is screwed. Schiff is correct overall, but I would be bullish on the USD short term. Gold is never a bubble b/c it never loses its true intrinsic value. If it falls $x nominally it is still worth the same when it comes to trading it for the USD & then buying goods with it. This is b/c the USD has increased in purchasing power proportionately.
I hope you're right mrzack. Everyone have a Merry Christmas. It's my believe that this will be the last Christmas with our standard of living this high.
Let's get the ball rolling so our children have a chance.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Agreed. Social Security, Unemployment insurance, the GI Bill, Medicare, FHA, student loans, were all important factors in the rise of the US middle class.
Modern day Hooverites like Schiffty Pete ignore this, of course.
And soon medicare, medicaid, and social securtiy will be the downfall of the middle class once all the programs go bankrupt. Once the dollar goes completely south of heaven, there will be no means to fund the GI bill, student loans, & unemployment. AtlasShruggery, your communist utopia will solve nothing. The Soviet union & China have abandoned Marxism because they know its a lowbrow ideology.
Silly Paulbot. I'm likely far more of a capitalist than you are. I just don't let my love for profits blind me to the idiocy of you RepubliCons and your Trickle Down Reaganomics.
When you grow up and have worked and paid taxes for a few years maybe you'll understand.
Atlas - "love of profits"? Most anyone who has used the capitalist system as an entreprenuer will agree the inspiration comes not from a profit driven motive. Rather, it comes from the freedom of being able to dream and see the dream come to fruition. The drive comes from visualizing bringing something into this world to meet an unrealized demand; something only entreprenuers can see. Most small companies scrape by for many years before seeing real profits. The profits are just the gravy.
Sure if you're talking about a Steve Jobs or a Bill Gates kind of person. But generally speaking, profit is an entrepreneur's income and their means for survival.
Agreed. But profits are important, too. It's how we keep score. And it's hard to buy groceries and put the kids through school just on inspiration. Unless, of course, you're a member of the Lucky Sperm Club like so many of these Conservative Nanny State Republicans.
There are two primary reasons groceries are expensive, and we have your friend Roosevelt to thank for one of them. Farmers receive money from the government to NOT grow food, and by doing so maintain high prices. This began under Hoover, was part of the New Deal, and continues today. The second reason is due to inflation which affects food prices early on.
School used to be much cheaper. In fact, it's programs such as Federally insured student loans that make them so expensive because when school gets more expensive students borrow more money in order to pay for it. The schools don't have to worry about not getting their money. Prior to this program, even a degree from Harvard was affordable.
Medicare and student loans did not exist at the time of the rise of the middle class. To suggest that those two policies in any way contributed to the rise in the middle class is blind idealogy.
As for the "hooverite" charge, you must mean the same Hoover who raised taxes, expanded regulation, established the Fed Home Loan Bank Act, enacted trade barriers, enacted wage and price controls, and passed a massive civil works program.
Methinks you're projecting. Are you really that ignorant of the effects of the GI Bill? VA and FHA loan programs resulted in a huge increase in homeownership. Social Security and Medicare resulted in a huge decrease in poverty among the elderly. All this led to the growth of the middle class.
I'm genuinely amused at how you RepubliCons are now trying to spin yer boy Herbert Hoover as some kinda big government liberal.
On the surface it appears that things such as the GI Bill and VA and FHA loan programs grow or at least help the middle class by allowing them to buy homes, or in the case of the GI Bill go to college and get a job that pays better than they would otherwise get. However, there are things beneath the surface that show overall, these things have an overall negative effect on the economy, and actually hurt the middle class.
There are a number of things. Primarily, it's essential to understand first that the government itself has no means of producing an income with which to provides these public services. It must take the money from the public in the form of taxes. Therefore, no wealth is actually produced, it is merely taken from one place and transferred to another. Taking capital from a business, or taking capital from a person destroys means of creating new wealth in proportion to that which was taken.
kstaylor What is "new wealth?" Is it wealth from selling products domestically or just from exporting? If new wealth includes sales of products within the country then aren't taxes a form of "forced" product sales? What's wrong with that kind of new wealth? It's created by the govt by forcing the rich to pay for things they buy like post-it notes, computers, and food for the poor. The compaines that supply the govt need "new wealth" too including the grocery stores that benefit from food stamps.
New wealth is new goods or services created that have value and are marketable. For example, if an entrepreneur goes into business and makes something that people want, that new item he made is "new wealth." Also, I wouldn't say that taxes are a form of forced product sales. Taxes are nothing more than the government taking someone's property and giving it to someone else. Also, I don't understand this hatred toward the rich. They provide the means for everyone else to have better lives.
@brothermikefan I'm always hearing that the govt doesn't "produce" anything. Doesn't it provide a "service" though? It collects money and administers it to other entities. Would you say a temp service "produces" anything or is it a paid middleman for monetary transactions between employers (taxpayers) and employees (social services)?
And were you inferring that I hated the rich? I don't know how you deduced that from my comment. Maybe you were speaking in general terms?
@brothermikefan All the govt does is tax and spend. So naturally, all we do as taxpayers is pay for the things the govt spends on. If the govt spends money to give out flu vaccines then we are the ones that bought the syringes. See? Cha-ching. A sale was made over at Joe's Syringe Shop. What's the problem?
@brothermikefan Oh, okay. New wealth means there has to be a new widget on the market. What about new services? Doesn't the govt fall under that category? We pay a certain amount of money to live in a country where the govt maintains a certain standard of living for everyone. If the govt stopped doing what it does we'd be paying some company in the private sector to do it anyway.
@brothermikefan If we suddenly lost our gov't and started paying a private company to run the country I would think they'd be considered a creator of "new wealth" because they'd be selling something on the market that we'd all need (administrative services.) How would it be any better than having a government creating that service?
Also, could we trust everyone to send in their checks voluntarily to pay for this vital service? Isn't taxation the most efficient and fair way to collect money?
Growth of wealth is what makes the middle class rich, not the transfer of it. Social Security was originally intended to be temporary, but is now a permanent fixture and has created a state of dependency on the government for those who use it. The FHA is harmful in that is removes the risk of lending for mortgages, and does so at the tax payers expense.
Did you see all of the policies that I just referenced that he supported and signed into law? Have you actually taken the time to research anything Hoover did? Hoover was no lassaiz-faire type, his treasury secretary Andrew Mellon was, but Hoover went against Mellon's advice time and time again (except for one recommendation for a large tax cut). Just look at his record: increased regulation, expanded civil service, trade protection, civil works spending, federal loan guarantees.
Rexford Tugwell, a member of FDR's cabinet (Dept of Agriculture) once said: "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started." So you tell me: if the New Deal was such a godsend, why is it that the longest single period of prolongued economic misery was a 16 year era spanning Hoover and FDR characterized by massive government spending and continuing unemployment and poverty? Quite simply, the New Deal was an epic failure.
Are you kidding? Government did not get us out of the Depression. It wasn't even the war. brothermikefan, look up Roosevelts Works progress administration. Also, look at the economy 10yrs after Roosevelt was in the white house. The economy went nowhere under Roosevelt.
Quite the opposite. It was actually a dramatic decrease in govt expenditures resulting from the end of the second world war and the near halving of the govt to GDP ratio that sparked the boom of the late 1940's and early 1950's and led to the creation of the middle class.
There was a similar dramatic decrease in government expenditures and an economic boom following the end of World War I which did not lead to a similar growth in the middle class. The lack of regulation in the 1920s boom led to the 1929 collapse and the Great Depression. The post World War II boom did not result in a bubble and collapse because of the regulatory policies put in place under FDR.
@Wreckoncile Quite the nonsense. We were in a depression. When you're in a depression you typically need stimulus. It started with the New Deal which was then followed by the great public works program called World War II. Before the Depression there was no middle class to speak of. Afterwards we had income rates rising amongst classes at a proportional rate.
@brothermikefan When I say stimulus I mean stimulus as in "cash" like GW's three hundred bucks to everybody. In the Depression we gave out the "cash" in the form of the New Deal and then in jobs making bombs and airplanes (kinda like fixing roads and making solar panels.)
@brothermikefan The problem we have now is that once we have domestic activity moving again we won't be able to grow until we start exporting. That's going to be difficult since everybody's kinda broke this time around. No one's interested in importing anything from us from what I understand. That's why we need to discover a planet that has intelligent life on it who wants to buy our windmills.
This Keynesian "stimulus" notion was unsuccessful in the 1930's. Unemployment was still 18% at the end of 1939. The only reason unemployment decreased in 1941-1945 (1.2% in 1944) is because the federal govt DRAFTED 10 MILLION MEN, nearly 20% of the prewar labor force. There wasn't significant real economic growth (growth in consumer and capital goods) until after the war ended in 1945.
The Keynesians all fretted that the halving of govt following the war would create another depression. Instead, the opposite ensued: Due to the dramatic decreases in the size and scope of govt, 20 million men found employment (unemployment from 1945-1949 was around 4%), the economy increased 27% in 1945 (following a massive reduction in govt spending) and the economy boomed unlike it had in the 16 years prior that were defined by increasing regulation, gov't spending, and incursions on liberty.
@Wreckoncile Let's take it slowly. Why were we in the longest period of prolonged economic misery? I would say it was because it was THAT BAD! Spending of any kind would only have a snowball effect that could last 16 years or 32 years. GDP rose from the Now Deal upwards. Military spending went beyond the public sector. We hired contractors from the private sector who then created jobs that lasted beyond the war. This is true stuff. Plus there were some cool things like daycare for women workers.
Well, there was actually a larger one year economic contraction in 1920, but few know of it because it did not snowball like the great depression did. 1920-1921 featured 18% price depreciation, decreases in aggregate demand, GNP declined 6.9%. Contrast w 1930-1931(first full depr. year): GNP shrank around 8.5%, and deflation was about 11.5%. Very similar declines. The difference: Harding in 1920 slashed the federal budget and the economy rebounded and boomed.
Government spending did not get us out of the Depression and it did not create the middle class. Government spending and manipulation of interest rates created our corporate run consumer speculation bubble, destroyed the free market and killed the middle class. Every government employee is a drag on the economy. Every government project, including infrastructure, is a misallocation of resources, because policy runs it, not demand. Government involvement always destroys real economic growth.
Peter, how do you explain the behavior of two of the former richest men in the world, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the LARGEST charitable foundation in the WORLD and Warren Buffet (once worth 65 billion) has been spending the years from 2006 until now giving away his entire fortune?
Time point 6:06 and specifically 7:20 is and excellent terse discussion of the estate tax and relating it to job losses and to the nation's well being. This is happening now. It started in 2008 where those with good advisers started making those moves to liquidate businesses. Jobs gone forever because capital for creating new businesses is scarce. Another example is the Government coming in an wholesale closing GM dealerships destroyed jobs. These are lifetime works gone forever.
lol...more like the foreign policy of bush sr i'd say hehe ^^ i must confess out of a terrible republican or schiff? i'd choose schiff. if there was a 'threat' not that i agree with his foreign policy it would be a step up from the invade and occupy mindset of current conservatism. schiff god save his soul~!11!! is more of the tactical strike and gtfo doctrine... but idk haha terrible connery anyway
oh and how is his economic policy like herbert hoover's??? hoover was a die hard interventionist~~ something schiff is definitely NOT. bush jr is a more accurate portrayal of a herbert hoover.
lol? herbert hoover did the right thing by keynesian standards - he engaged in monetary and fiscal stimulus just as you have in the US today~ did i mention massive by the standards of the time? and no i didn't hear that from 'Faux News' you arrogant mofo it is common fact, why not read up on the 'depression' of 1920 see how laissez-faire saved yo yank asses. warren harding did nothing and the economy rebounded just as quickly as it had gone under. Skipped over by interventionists it seems.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ah yes, the old Harding canard. A big favorite with the Mises hacks. The Depression of 1920 was the result of reduced military spending after World War I. Quick recovery and quick paydown of war debt. The same thing happened after World War II. The same economic policies that you praise Harding for are what led to the speculative bubble of the 1920s and then to the Great Depression.
lol. are you sure it wasn't the usual culprit? the fed? i quote from master woods on the matter "The years preceding 1920 were characterized by a massive increase in the supply of money via the banking system, with reserve requirements having been halved by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and then with considerable credit expansion by the banks themselves" plz dont tell me these things have no effect on the economy~~ i think you have confused causality
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Do you think it's just coincidence that the economy turned around in 1933 after four consecutive years of declines in GDP and four consecutive years of increases in unemployment?
Thanks. Yes, of course. The problem we have is that facts like that mean nothing to the Faux News crowd. They live in a faith based reality where Iraq attacked us on 9-11 and evolution is a hoax.
Regarding the death tax: I wouldn't be surprised to find out that many wealthy people will transfer their wealth next year - Just before the new world order kicks in. It's all part of the plan.
I find the concept of estate tax to be hugely irritating - you're paying taxes while you're accumulating the capital and then the government steps in again and takes half, which if the capital is a business, would lead to you having to liquidate part or all of it if it is not already hugely cash-rich (and if you did not have the cash yourself to give to the government).
No Peter Schiff never directly said to attack Iran like you're implying .
He did state that Iran is working on nuclear weapons instead of a peaceful program & that if they(Iran) refuse to let UN inspectors verify these sights peaceful nature then destroy them .
Not once has Peter said Invade or bomb Iranian cities or kill Iranian citizens okay (Damn persian girls are beautiful)
Iran's radical Mullahs are the enemy not the Iranian people.
Listen to his comments within the full context of the question. He said he doesn't want to occupy these countries. It makes sense to take out strategic targets and just back off rather than be stuck with these long wars and nation rebuilding. Also you can't stick him with the label of neocon after something as silly as this.
I wonder where people in the west will get their clothes from if international trade would break down because of oilshock or currency breakdowns. Is their any Production for daily needs left? What we produce here is mostly automobiles, weapons and houses. The most comes from the rest of the world.
Peter you recently mentioned you were willing to strike Iran if they had WMD but you let down alot of your libertarian fans with that statement. The banks, right wing neocons want to create another war/conflict in Afghanistan, I thought you had a hands off approach like Ron Paul but I guess I was wrong. With your foreign policy stance I couldnt support you, even though I agree with all of your economic views.
I actually want an end to income taxes, for all private businesses and individuals. This of course would not include corporations, which are public entities.
I'm a proponent of sales taxes, and fees for service. This is a non-appropriative way for a municipality to raise necessary revenue. It is also very difficult (but of course, not impossible) to manipulate.
The maxium income tax rate in 1958 was 90%. Weren't things better back then in many ways? That was the greatest period of peacetime economic growth and prosperity for Americans.
I hate to intrude with the facts, but the maximum income tax was 90% but not a single damn person payed even close to the percents we pay now, in reality.
If anybody bought gold at 1200 and thought it was wise to sell at 1100, they have more money than brains, thats for sure.
Gold would have to drop a lot, and I mean a lot, and be down for a long time and I would really really have to need the dollars for me to ever sell it at a numerical loss.
There was no moral hazard with AIG. The executives earned huge salaries and bonuses for those temporary paper gains that evaporated when reality caught up to them. They didn't care if their companies lived or died.
Also, if AIG and all the execs had to operate in a real economy leading up to this clusterfuck, they never could have gotten so rich ripping people off anyway. The problem wouldn't exist and thus wouldn't need to be solved by taxing people.
If Austrian's ruled the world, every complaint you have becomes essentially moot.
Very wrong. Even in the game Second Life, where players spent real money for game money, the banks failed, costing hundreds of millions of real dollars. There was no regulation of business in the game at all. Banks invested deposits anyway they saw fit and supply and demand determined the prices of everything. Banks naturally fail.
Especially since in Second Life, there is no actual productive capacity at all, no need to eat. No fear of dying. No actual legitimate incentive to do anything.
The economy was still relatively well off when the Second Life meltdowns occurred. Yes, we were heading to a bad place, but there was still minimal money hoarding.
It's not productive capacity that matters, unless you define it as utility. The utility came from the enjoyment of the game, where as with productivity, its the enjoyment or amelioration received when you can buy what you want.
Its' all about reinforcement, which is something some economists forget about.
What I find most interesting is that you think because some banks failed in a game that it is a legit argument.
Go to Obama and tell him that, let me know what he says, ok?
or go make your own game using your ideas, let me know how well it works.
Jesus, I don't care what happened in second life, i can look at my own country, or other REAL countries and see what has happened. I can use our OWN REAL HISTORY and see what has happened.
It's an example of how unregulated banks fail on their own. The same was true during the free banking era in the US. There were plenty of failures with minimal, if any government regulation during long stretches of that period.
In second life, the economy depends on people putting real world money into second life. With out people trading real world dollars for second life currency, the system necessarily fails. It is not a real economy in second life. No one makes anything, no physical commodities exist.
As a result, when the big crash happened, people stop putting money into second life. That is why the banks failed in the game. it was our economy that caused second life's economy to fail. it was not independent.
The Second Life failures happened before the money hoarding in the US and elsewhere.
Banks fail because everyone temporarily benefits from irresonsible policies on the way up, but few know how to get out in time. As a matter of fact, a majority of people think they know more about the economy than people on average. Obviously not true. Most people define knowledge and intelligence through their own personal lenses.
Oh sure, obviously the second life banking crisis (funny even saying that) happened during peak spending in the US economy... Yeah, right and I'm the pope.
Second life is a piss poor way to simulate an economy since the whole idea of it is basically Moral hazard. There are no accurate market forces in a game where nothing actually matters..
It does represent some ways humans act on intermittent reinforcement schedules, which can have implications for investment activity, etc. So, there are certainly broader implications.
I still can't believe we are talking about using second life as an example of austrian economics. there are so damn many problems with the comparison it is totally pointless.
next you are going to tell me the Linden Dollar is on a gold standard, and that that failed.
I have had a long standing theory that all the problems we try to fix are created by trying to fix other problems that shouldn't even existed.
The net effect is, all the stuff you like to bitch about was caused by people who think like you, creating new taxes, trying to even out wage gaps and shit years ago.
If that's true, then why is it that economic times were so good in the 50s despite a top income tax rate of 90%? Real incomes increased for the bottom 80%,, fueling the largest move from poverty to middle class living in our history. As the top rates came down, eventually to around 30% under Reagan, the bottom 80% of Americans saw their real wages stagnate or diminish.
Perhaps you aren't aware that when the top income tax was 90% no one paid even close to that. They paid less than our percentages now despite the "official rate." Look it up, since you like numbers so much.
Also, back in them thar days, 70% of our economy wasn't based on buying useless Chinese garbage. We actually made things in the US that people bought, including foreigners.
Also, prior to 1971, there was some convertibility between the dollar and precious metals. Since 1971, the dollar lost something like 80% of its 1900 value.
That is why things suck now, taxes are basically irrelevant, however wrong they are.
"the dollar could certainly rally enough to sway the opinion of traders..."
...or voters.
If the dollar doesn't plummet next year, or if unemployment abates, Peter's gonna have a tough time making his case against Dodd. Remember, the stimulus was designed so that most of the money is spent in 2010. I highly doubt that was coincidence.
i think we need a nation debt tax,it will be like federal an state tax,it will come out of our paychecks,and be a perment tax,and all that money goes paying down are debt,to coutrys we owe money to,like china,and have a bill statement everymonth showing who we paid each month, and i think its good for us,to chip in and pay down our debt to other coutry,the new debt tax is good
racheljoy8407 1 year ago
@racheljoy8407, Hahahahahaha, I hope that your post was sarcasm. Paying more tax to reduce debt is like throwing gasoline on a fire to extinguish it, AS LONG AS THE MONEY YOU PAY IS FIAT CURRENCY. Watch 'The Creature from Jekyll Island' and get yourself an education.
Cheers.
NeMeImpuneLacessit 1 year ago
I'll keep buying silver and gold.
MrGreatLakesBuffalo 1 year ago
@MrGreatLakesBuffalo
Google- Executive order 6102
Just a thought, I am not accusing or trying to mislead anyone for any reasons.
IlluminMindWorksWell 1 year ago
Peter you lost me with the rant on "the estate tax." Who gives a crap if a rich kid has to work for something. The tax doesnt even start till the 2 million dollar mark.
wlogan1977 2 years ago
I guess you weren't paying attention-->Estate tax destroys jobs.
goodeljg 2 years ago
@goodeljg : destroys small business and entrepreneurship too...
clemep 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Warren Buffett owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses. Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out. He also is planning investments in ethanol giant ADM and government-contracting leviathan General Dynamics. If your businesses’ revenue comes from the U.S. Treasury, of course you want more wealth.
vechorik 5 months ago
I like the night-time ambience...
Tressco 2 years ago
lmao even as it was set up: "People fleeing Greek debt to Treasuries--"
herzogsbuick 2 years ago
How come people always think capitalists or pro free market people are always very uncaring/rude/ empathy lacking.. I think it couldn't be more opposite.
Chslosers 2 years ago
@Chslosers please explain.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
It is just funny..
Chslosers 2 years ago
@brothermikefan People who have things of their own want to share them. People who have only shared things, or through some kind of resistance receive what they have, turn pack rat/territorial and act like jerk offs not because they are jerk offs (like a jerk off capitalist would act like a jerk off because he's a jerk off), but they act like jerk offs because of their situation.
herzogsbuick 2 years ago
Free enterprise is the true system. Keep up the good work Peter.
hitman40912 2 years ago
Thank you for posting this -
Merry Christmas
Love Liberty & Peace*))
campaign4liberty 2 years ago
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everyone on You Tube
2010 be a Great Years for everyone, World Peace No War No Hunger No Poverty break troughs in Medicine for the sick
From: Columbus Ohio
Zedsdead1968 2 years ago
Peace be upon you. -Washington State.
Chslosers 2 years ago
I wish our world leaders we're like Peter. Unfortunately we elect socialist extremists who believe in survival of the weakest. Keep up the good work Peter.
From the UK.
hitman40912 2 years ago
mhsearching for a guy that would treat me well.
Arlenamadra 2 years ago
Comment removed
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Let the people control their own lives, future and capital..Please, liberals can not even begin to think of freedom on that level. Govt, Govt, govt that is their mindless answer.
pismo10 2 years ago
@pismo10 Let the people live in the jungle. Let the word "rights" have no meaning.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Talk about a straw-man argument. And even were there no government (or the primitivist Rambo world that you see existing in the absence of central authority) to protect the rights of man, that would not render the concept of rights meaningless. We libertarian-minded people recognize only negative rights, namely the freedom from incursions into our rights. The modern left recognizes "positive" rights, i.e. right to healthcare, food, shelter etc.
Wreckoncile 2 years ago
The fundamental problem w so-called positive rights is that they specifically require the trampling of the far more important negative rights in order to fulfill them. Namely, the fruits of one persons labor must be confiscated with the threat of force in order to be redistributed according to your "positive" rights. However, when asked where rights derive from, the positive rightists have no coherent or systematic way to explain, while negative rightists can justly cite how man is born free.
Wreckoncile 2 years ago
@Wreckoncile That's great. But in the jungle if I want your fruit I can cut your head off. I have that right. Correct? Or is that a question even worth asking? See my point? Governments protect rights. We all get together and agree on what rights are.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan The problem with that example of rights is that no right can exist that would require/permit taking of another's rights. Namely, I have a right to life and the fruits of my labor (in the case of your example, the fruit I found/picked). If you were to cut my head off, you would be violating my rights to life and prperty. That is the case against positive rights. A commodity (i.e. health insurance) cannot be a right because it requires taking from another in order to fulfill it
Wreckoncile 2 years ago
My point is that we dont live in a jungle. We give people the right to eat using other peoples' money even though in the jungle each of us WOULD have that right anyway. (by you keeping that fruit away from me you're negatively affecting my god-given right to have nourishment and survive.) We live in a civilized society that maintains a certain standard of living. We do not have unemployed savages running around using their ingenutity, innovation and talent marauding us and robbing our houses.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan They stay home and mauraud us through our taxes.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
I disagree. What right is there that you must be nourished and to survive? Where do you think civilization and our standard of living come from? It comes from capitalism (individual property rights with profit/loss motives).
whitechocolatespace 2 years ago
@whitechocolatespace What right is there that you must be nourished and to survive? It's found in our DNA. It's called freedom from death. In the jungle anything goes as long as you EAT. We just happen to be in a civilized jungle where the poor are just a few meals away from being savages. We pay a premium to prevent that from happening as a way of maintaining our standard of living.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan: you're confusing a 'right' with a 'need.' We all need food and shelter but they aren't rights.
whitechocolatespace 2 years ago
@whitechocolatespace The point is there is no such thing as a "right" in the jungle. The word has no meaning. Survival is all that matters. Think about it. THE JUNGLE. Ever watched those nature programs? It's nothing but creatures EATING other creaures. If that isn't the most basic right for living on this planet then I don't know what else is. According to nature, we have the right to kill to eat.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@Brothermikefan: Sure there is. There is the right to self-ownership and homesteading. In the jungle if someone or thing wants to kill me, I have the right to defend myself. And if I find a piece of fruit in the jungle, and nobody owns anything, then the fruit is my property and therefore have the right to defend against someone stealing it. Sure, in the jungle, others are free to try to kill me and steal my stuff. I'm also free to stop them.
whitechocolatespace 2 years ago
@whitechocolatespace You don't have a right unless there's a third party there to decide who's "right" as it were. Nature doesn't care who's right or who's wrong. Do you think the cockroaches feel guilty about stealing? Is there such a thing as stealing? One takes in order to survive and the other misses out in order to try harder or die. There's no right or wrong. Just survival.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan Only when you create a government do you decide what is right and wrong.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan Then you can start tacking on a bunch of other rights that you won't find in the jungle. Some of them require positive action or else they will be in violation by default. Things like the right to your health. (it's illegal to refuse anyone at an emergency room.) This costs money. We create governments to protect rights so we give them the power to take our money and provide Medicare to those who's rights are about to be violated. It's all relative.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Comment removed
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan Some societies think it's their "right" to eat their dead in order to get to heaven.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Comment removed
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan: That's because you don't think jungle survival in terms of enforcing your right to self-ownership and private property. Those are nature-given, just like all the animals. Those need to be exercised in order to survive. And when a government protects those rights, standards of survival rise as a result.
whitechocolatespace 2 years ago
@whitechocolatespace The right to private property is only a psychological phenomenon. It has no meaning until it's validated or enforced by an outside entity. It's like the right to privacy. Does that have any meaning in the jungle? How about the right to a fair trial? You may feel very strongly about these but the trees and the grass and the water couldn't give two craps about what you think your rights are. Only when we create governments do we define what principles are worth defending.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan: No it's not. You don't have to go to the jungle to have it validated. Go try to take a pit bull's dinner away from him and see what happens. Try to explain his snarls aren't validated because there's no government that entitles him to his food.
whitechocolatespace 2 years ago
@whitechocolatespace How do you know I wasn't hungrier than the dog? I could have been snarling just as loud. In the jungle I have just as much right to that dinner as he does because in the jungle we all have to eat. I don't care if he procured it himself. I'm procuring it from HIM. That's where human philosophy has to step in and set the ground rules as to who deserves what and why.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan Just like the dog wouldn't hesitate to take my dinner away from me in the jungle. He knows nothing of private property. It's not a natural thing. It's a human construct. There are no rights in nature other than to be allowed to eat each other the best way you know how. There is no morality other than the morality we impose on ourselves through govt (see: religion) We can change what is right or wrong. We have in the past. Laws are relative to the times blah blah it's getting late
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Comment removed
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan One last thing. I don't know if you've seen the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy" but it revolves around a tribe of Bushmen in South Africa who have no idea of the concept of private property whatsoever. They are nomadic and they live off the land. They carry very little around because they assume that everything they need will generally be there when they need it. Something to think about.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan Oh, my point was that they would laugh at you if you said you had private ownership rights to a piece of land or a worthless gold disc in your pocket.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan: (last post - you can have the last say) You're missing my point if you think that you also have rights just because you're hungrier. The dog snarling was to illustrate that even animals understand that their kill (food) is their property and are willing to defend it. I know what premise you're trying to set up: Only gov't can determine and bestow rights. And by illustrating the lack of 'rights', as you define it, you create your jungle to prove your point. Ok, have at it.
whitechocolatespace 2 years ago
@Brothermikefan: Sure you have the physical ability to steal and harm others. But just because you can doesn't mean it's a right. A right cannot exist if it violates the right of another. Yes, gov't should protect rights. Outside of private property and self-ownership, it's a difficult case to establish other 'rights' for some without the use of coersion on others.
whitechocolatespace 2 years ago
Thanks Peter. Nice video.
Intervene 2 years ago
Yes. Today's so called conservatism is actually classical liberalism and today's liberalism is actually more akin to old-world conservatism.
When I look at an iron mine, I see progress, man shaping his world. A modern liberal says this is wrong. A modern liberal hates progress unless is it in their narrow view of what makes up progress.
I like free markets rather than the status quo government control. Government control is what we've had since feudalism. Progressives ARE the conservatives.
bobdole57 2 years ago
The fundamentals of the USD are bad, but compared to what? Look at some of the other countries & you might find that it is not all that bad. Europe is screwed. Schiff is correct overall, but I would be bullish on the USD short term. Gold is never a bubble b/c it never loses its true intrinsic value. If it falls $x nominally it is still worth the same when it comes to trading it for the USD & then buying goods with it. This is b/c the USD has increased in purchasing power proportionately.
high5flyer 2 years ago 2
I hope you're right mrzack. Everyone have a Merry Christmas. It's my believe that this will be the last Christmas with our standard of living this high.
Let's get the ball rolling so our children have a chance.
tizacat 2 years ago
we will Crush the New World Order
mrzack888 2 years ago
@mrzack888: that's the spirit!! haha
commonsense2008 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Does everyone here agree that it was government spending that helped not only to get us out of the Depression but to create a middle class?
brothermikefan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Agreed. Social Security, Unemployment insurance, the GI Bill, Medicare, FHA, student loans, were all important factors in the rise of the US middle class.
Modern day Hooverites like Schiffty Pete ignore this, of course.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
and now fall of the middle class
msegreto2 2 years ago 4
And soon medicare, medicaid, and social securtiy will be the downfall of the middle class once all the programs go bankrupt. Once the dollar goes completely south of heaven, there will be no means to fund the GI bill, student loans, & unemployment. AtlasShruggery, your communist utopia will solve nothing. The Soviet union & China have abandoned Marxism because they know its a lowbrow ideology.
cartmanfan0316 2 years ago 4
My "communist utopia"?
Silly Paulbot. I'm likely far more of a capitalist than you are. I just don't let my love for profits blind me to the idiocy of you RepubliCons and your Trickle Down Reaganomics.
When you grow up and have worked and paid taxes for a few years maybe you'll understand.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
Atlas - "love of profits"? Most anyone who has used the capitalist system as an entreprenuer will agree the inspiration comes not from a profit driven motive. Rather, it comes from the freedom of being able to dream and see the dream come to fruition. The drive comes from visualizing bringing something into this world to meet an unrealized demand; something only entreprenuers can see. Most small companies scrape by for many years before seeing real profits. The profits are just the gravy.
myebay4u 2 years ago 2
Sure if you're talking about a Steve Jobs or a Bill Gates kind of person. But generally speaking, profit is an entrepreneur's income and their means for survival.
whitechocolatespace 2 years ago
Agreed. But profits are important, too. It's how we keep score. And it's hard to buy groceries and put the kids through school just on inspiration. Unless, of course, you're a member of the Lucky Sperm Club like so many of these Conservative Nanny State Republicans.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
There are two primary reasons groceries are expensive, and we have your friend Roosevelt to thank for one of them. Farmers receive money from the government to NOT grow food, and by doing so maintain high prices. This began under Hoover, was part of the New Deal, and continues today. The second reason is due to inflation which affects food prices early on.
kstaylor98682 2 years ago
School used to be much cheaper. In fact, it's programs such as Federally insured student loans that make them so expensive because when school gets more expensive students borrow more money in order to pay for it. The schools don't have to worry about not getting their money. Prior to this program, even a degree from Harvard was affordable.
kstaylor98682 2 years ago
Medicare and student loans did not exist at the time of the rise of the middle class. To suggest that those two policies in any way contributed to the rise in the middle class is blind idealogy.
As for the "hooverite" charge, you must mean the same Hoover who raised taxes, expanded regulation, established the Fed Home Loan Bank Act, enacted trade barriers, enacted wage and price controls, and passed a massive civil works program.
Schiff is not Hoover. Obama is.
Wreckoncile 2 years ago 4
"blind idealogy"?
Methinks you're projecting. Are you really that ignorant of the effects of the GI Bill? VA and FHA loan programs resulted in a huge increase in homeownership. Social Security and Medicare resulted in a huge decrease in poverty among the elderly. All this led to the growth of the middle class.
I'm genuinely amused at how you RepubliCons are now trying to spin yer boy Herbert Hoover as some kinda big government liberal.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
On the surface it appears that things such as the GI Bill and VA and FHA loan programs grow or at least help the middle class by allowing them to buy homes, or in the case of the GI Bill go to college and get a job that pays better than they would otherwise get. However, there are things beneath the surface that show overall, these things have an overall negative effect on the economy, and actually hurt the middle class.
kstaylor98682 2 years ago
"there are things beneath the surface"
What things? Please be specific.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
There are a number of things. Primarily, it's essential to understand first that the government itself has no means of producing an income with which to provides these public services. It must take the money from the public in the form of taxes. Therefore, no wealth is actually produced, it is merely taken from one place and transferred to another. Taking capital from a business, or taking capital from a person destroys means of creating new wealth in proportion to that which was taken.
kstaylor98682 2 years ago
kstaylor What is "new wealth?" Is it wealth from selling products domestically or just from exporting? If new wealth includes sales of products within the country then aren't taxes a form of "forced" product sales? What's wrong with that kind of new wealth? It's created by the govt by forcing the rich to pay for things they buy like post-it notes, computers, and food for the poor. The compaines that supply the govt need "new wealth" too including the grocery stores that benefit from food stamps.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
New wealth is new goods or services created that have value and are marketable. For example, if an entrepreneur goes into business and makes something that people want, that new item he made is "new wealth." Also, I wouldn't say that taxes are a form of forced product sales. Taxes are nothing more than the government taking someone's property and giving it to someone else. Also, I don't understand this hatred toward the rich. They provide the means for everyone else to have better lives.
kstaylor98682 2 years ago
Comment removed
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan I'm always hearing that the govt doesn't "produce" anything. Doesn't it provide a "service" though? It collects money and administers it to other entities. Would you say a temp service "produces" anything or is it a paid middleman for monetary transactions between employers (taxpayers) and employees (social services)?
And were you inferring that I hated the rich? I don't know how you deduced that from my comment. Maybe you were speaking in general terms?
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan All the govt does is tax and spend. So naturally, all we do as taxpayers is pay for the things the govt spends on. If the govt spends money to give out flu vaccines then we are the ones that bought the syringes. See? Cha-ching. A sale was made over at Joe's Syringe Shop. What's the problem?
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan Oh, okay. New wealth means there has to be a new widget on the market. What about new services? Doesn't the govt fall under that category? We pay a certain amount of money to live in a country where the govt maintains a certain standard of living for everyone. If the govt stopped doing what it does we'd be paying some company in the private sector to do it anyway.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Comment removed
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan If we suddenly lost our gov't and started paying a private company to run the country I would think they'd be considered a creator of "new wealth" because they'd be selling something on the market that we'd all need (administrative services.) How would it be any better than having a government creating that service?
Also, could we trust everyone to send in their checks voluntarily to pay for this vital service? Isn't taxation the most efficient and fair way to collect money?
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Growth of wealth is what makes the middle class rich, not the transfer of it. Social Security was originally intended to be temporary, but is now a permanent fixture and has created a state of dependency on the government for those who use it. The FHA is harmful in that is removes the risk of lending for mortgages, and does so at the tax payers expense.
kstaylor98682 2 years ago
Casting Herbert Hoover as a big government liberal is almost as funny as calling Ronald Reagan a fiscal conservative.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
Did you see all of the policies that I just referenced that he supported and signed into law? Have you actually taken the time to research anything Hoover did? Hoover was no lassaiz-faire type, his treasury secretary Andrew Mellon was, but Hoover went against Mellon's advice time and time again (except for one recommendation for a large tax cut). Just look at his record: increased regulation, expanded civil service, trade protection, civil works spending, federal loan guarantees.
Wreckoncile 2 years ago
Rexford Tugwell, a member of FDR's cabinet (Dept of Agriculture) once said: "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started." So you tell me: if the New Deal was such a godsend, why is it that the longest single period of prolongued economic misery was a 16 year era spanning Hoover and FDR characterized by massive government spending and continuing unemployment and poverty? Quite simply, the New Deal was an epic failure.
Wreckoncile 2 years ago
Not one of those programs contributed to the rise of the middle class. They created a government dependent debtor class.
SummervilleSCDan 2 years ago 2
Are you kidding? Government did not get us out of the Depression. It wasn't even the war. brothermikefan, look up Roosevelts Works progress administration. Also, look at the economy 10yrs after Roosevelt was in the white house. The economy went nowhere under Roosevelt.
cartmanfan0316 2 years ago 3
@cartmanfan0316 My question was what DID get us out of the Depression; not what DIDN'T get us out of the Depresson.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Quite the opposite. It was actually a dramatic decrease in govt expenditures resulting from the end of the second world war and the near halving of the govt to GDP ratio that sparked the boom of the late 1940's and early 1950's and led to the creation of the middle class.
Wreckoncile 2 years ago
There was a similar dramatic decrease in government expenditures and an economic boom following the end of World War I which did not lead to a similar growth in the middle class. The lack of regulation in the 1920s boom led to the 1929 collapse and the Great Depression. The post World War II boom did not result in a bubble and collapse because of the regulatory policies put in place under FDR.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
@Wreckoncile Quite the nonsense. We were in a depression. When you're in a depression you typically need stimulus. It started with the New Deal which was then followed by the great public works program called World War II. Before the Depression there was no middle class to speak of. Afterwards we had income rates rising amongst classes at a proportional rate.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan When I say stimulus I mean stimulus as in "cash" like GW's three hundred bucks to everybody. In the Depression we gave out the "cash" in the form of the New Deal and then in jobs making bombs and airplanes (kinda like fixing roads and making solar panels.)
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan The problem we have now is that once we have domestic activity moving again we won't be able to grow until we start exporting. That's going to be difficult since everybody's kinda broke this time around. No one's interested in importing anything from us from what I understand. That's why we need to discover a planet that has intelligent life on it who wants to buy our windmills.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
This Keynesian "stimulus" notion was unsuccessful in the 1930's. Unemployment was still 18% at the end of 1939. The only reason unemployment decreased in 1941-1945 (1.2% in 1944) is because the federal govt DRAFTED 10 MILLION MEN, nearly 20% of the prewar labor force. There wasn't significant real economic growth (growth in consumer and capital goods) until after the war ended in 1945.
Wreckoncile 2 years ago
The Keynesians all fretted that the halving of govt following the war would create another depression. Instead, the opposite ensued: Due to the dramatic decreases in the size and scope of govt, 20 million men found employment (unemployment from 1945-1949 was around 4%), the economy increased 27% in 1945 (following a massive reduction in govt spending) and the economy boomed unlike it had in the 16 years prior that were defined by increasing regulation, gov't spending, and incursions on liberty.
Wreckoncile 2 years ago
@Wreckoncile Let's take it slowly. Why were we in the longest period of prolonged economic misery? I would say it was because it was THAT BAD! Spending of any kind would only have a snowball effect that could last 16 years or 32 years. GDP rose from the Now Deal upwards. Military spending went beyond the public sector. We hired contractors from the private sector who then created jobs that lasted beyond the war. This is true stuff. Plus there were some cool things like daycare for women workers.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Well, there was actually a larger one year economic contraction in 1920, but few know of it because it did not snowball like the great depression did. 1920-1921 featured 18% price depreciation, decreases in aggregate demand, GNP declined 6.9%. Contrast w 1930-1931(first full depr. year): GNP shrank around 8.5%, and deflation was about 11.5%. Very similar declines. The difference: Harding in 1920 slashed the federal budget and the economy rebounded and boomed.
Wreckoncile 2 years ago
Government spending did not get us out of the Depression and it did not create the middle class. Government spending and manipulation of interest rates created our corporate run consumer speculation bubble, destroyed the free market and killed the middle class. Every government employee is a drag on the economy. Every government project, including infrastructure, is a misallocation of resources, because policy runs it, not demand. Government involvement always destroys real economic growth.
SummervilleSCDan 2 years ago 5
Peter, how do you explain the behavior of two of the former richest men in the world, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the LARGEST charitable foundation in the WORLD and Warren Buffet (once worth 65 billion) has been spending the years from 2006 until now giving away his entire fortune?
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Peter you should become the Fed chairmen or Secretary of treasury
MrJmtz07 2 years ago
Time point 6:06 and specifically 7:20 is and excellent terse discussion of the estate tax and relating it to job losses and to the nation's well being. This is happening now. It started in 2008 where those with good advisers started making those moves to liquidate businesses. Jobs gone forever because capital for creating new businesses is scarce. Another example is the Government coming in an wholesale closing GM dealerships destroyed jobs. These are lifetime works gone forever.
alonzohosford 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Schiffty Pete the RepubliCon: Combining the economic policies of Herbert Hoover with the foreign policy of Dick Cheney.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
lol...more like the foreign policy of bush sr i'd say hehe ^^ i must confess out of a terrible republican or schiff? i'd choose schiff. if there was a 'threat' not that i agree with his foreign policy it would be a step up from the invade and occupy mindset of current conservatism. schiff god save his soul~!11!! is more of the tactical strike and gtfo doctrine... but idk haha terrible connery anyway
jurchenAZ 2 years ago
oh and how is his economic policy like herbert hoover's??? hoover was a die hard interventionist~~ something schiff is definitely NOT. bush jr is a more accurate portrayal of a herbert hoover.
jurchenAZ 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"hoover was a die hard interventionist"
Not THAT'S some serious revisionist history. Where'd you hear that, Faux News?
Junior Bush was exactly what Ronald Reagan would have been like if he'd had a Republican Congress to do his bidding like Bush did.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
lol? herbert hoover did the right thing by keynesian standards - he engaged in monetary and fiscal stimulus just as you have in the US today~ did i mention massive by the standards of the time? and no i didn't hear that from 'Faux News' you arrogant mofo it is common fact, why not read up on the 'depression' of 1920 see how laissez-faire saved yo yank asses. warren harding did nothing and the economy rebounded just as quickly as it had gone under. Skipped over by interventionists it seems.
jurchenAZ 2 years ago 5
that's sum srs revisionist history.
jurchenAZ 2 years ago
you could say it was an objective fact A ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ho ho ho ho ho hohooo hoooo hoooo hoooo A ha ha ha ha
jurchenAZ 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ah yes, the old Harding canard. A big favorite with the Mises hacks. The Depression of 1920 was the result of reduced military spending after World War I. Quick recovery and quick paydown of war debt. The same thing happened after World War II. The same economic policies that you praise Harding for are what led to the speculative bubble of the 1920s and then to the Great Depression.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
lol. are you sure it wasn't the usual culprit? the fed? i quote from master woods on the matter "The years preceding 1920 were characterized by a massive increase in the supply of money via the banking system, with reserve requirements having been halved by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and then with considerable credit expansion by the banks themselves" plz dont tell me these things have no effect on the economy~~ i think you have confused causality
jurchenAZ 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Certainly, the contraction of the money supply after 1929 by the RepubliCons in charge of the Fed had a negative effect, too.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
indeed. and it's not like it stopped with the DemocRATS either...no wonder the depression lasted for 10 years :(
jurchenAZ 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do you think it's just coincidence that the economy turned around in 1933 after four consecutive years of declines in GDP and four consecutive years of increases in unemployment?
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
Comment removed
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@AtlasShruggery No coincidence to me seeing as that's when the New Deal was enacted.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Thanks. Yes, of course. The problem we have is that facts like that mean nothing to the Faux News crowd. They live in a faith based reality where Iraq attacked us on 9-11 and evolution is a hoax.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
@jurchenAZ Can you explain how you think we got out of the Depression?
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Comment removed
brothermikefan 2 years ago
""hoover was a die hard interventionist"
Not THAT'S some serious revisionist history. Where'd you hear that, Faux News?"
How so?
PumpkinJoe999 2 years ago 3
the dollar rallied because of consumer spending for christmas. the new year will bring in new all time gold highs
BRGxRandomHero 2 years ago
Regarding the death tax: I wouldn't be surprised to find out that many wealthy people will transfer their wealth next year - Just before the new world order kicks in. It's all part of the plan.
AmericanKenpoOfSoCal 2 years ago
Great points about the Estate Tax.
I find the concept of estate tax to be hugely irritating - you're paying taxes while you're accumulating the capital and then the government steps in again and takes half, which if the capital is a business, would lead to you having to liquidate part or all of it if it is not already hugely cash-rich (and if you did not have the cash yourself to give to the government).
Lamarrxyz 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey peter shit
frogbuster20 2 years ago
Comment removed
viewingiseasy 2 years ago
oh shut up.....he didn't say it that way.....jesus christ
rachcat08 2 years ago
@tommy6238
No Peter Schiff never directly said to attack Iran like you're implying .
He did state that Iran is working on nuclear weapons instead of a peaceful program & that if they(Iran) refuse to let UN inspectors verify these sights peaceful nature then destroy them .
Not once has Peter said Invade or bomb Iranian cities or kill Iranian citizens okay (Damn persian girls are beautiful)
Iran's radical Mullahs are the enemy not the Iranian people.
Their weapon program must be stopped
MOONKNIGHT2007 2 years ago 2
Listen to his comments within the full context of the question. He said he doesn't want to occupy these countries. It makes sense to take out strategic targets and just back off rather than be stuck with these long wars and nation rebuilding. Also you can't stick him with the label of neocon after something as silly as this.
lostmatt 2 years ago 4
Comment removed
tommy6238 2 years ago
Social Justice is getting to keep what you worked hard to earn and not have our own government steal it from us to give to 3rd world warlords.
BrainDeadRepublican 2 years ago 4
I wonder where people in the west will get their clothes from if international trade would break down because of oilshock or currency breakdowns. Is their any Production for daily needs left? What we produce here is mostly automobiles, weapons and houses. The most comes from the rest of the world.
pcuimac 2 years ago
We will all become nudists.
IWashMyOwnBrain 2 years ago
cool--no more laundry yayyyyyyyyyyyy
bitchcreekz1 2 years ago
Peter you recently mentioned you were willing to strike Iran if they had WMD but you let down alot of your libertarian fans with that statement. The banks, right wing neocons want to create another war/conflict in Afghanistan, I thought you had a hands off approach like Ron Paul but I guess I was wrong. With your foreign policy stance I couldnt support you, even though I agree with all of your economic views.
Scapone2001 2 years ago
Go Peter, 2010!!!
Daniel1RG 2 years ago
PETER SCHIFF 2010 !!!
iannetta11 2 years ago
Don't pull the plug!!!!!! HAHAHAH
Thanks Mr. Schiff for your hard work!
infinitestarz 2 years ago
The income tax system should definitely be reformed. The one we have now was set up by crooks.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
I actually want an end to income taxes, for all private businesses and individuals. This of course would not include corporations, which are public entities.
I'm a proponent of sales taxes, and fees for service. This is a non-appropriative way for a municipality to raise necessary revenue. It is also very difficult (but of course, not impossible) to manipulate.
UtubeMyAccountName 2 years ago
It's an idea worth considering. Maybe a Value Added Tax would be better than an income tax.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
The maxium income tax rate in 1958 was 90%. Weren't things better back then in many ways? That was the greatest period of peacetime economic growth and prosperity for Americans.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
I hate to intrude with the facts, but the maximum income tax was 90% but not a single damn person payed even close to the percents we pay now, in reality.
bobdole57 2 years ago
Perhaps rather than looking at historical tax rates, we should look at what people actually paid. What a thought.
Did you know what in Hitler's Germany, they had a tax rate that favored jews? BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL DEAD!
Does that mean anything at all? No.
bobdole57 2 years ago
The 1800's kicked 1958's ass!
rikestard 2 years ago
Apparently, Peter didn't get the memo that recession is over. *_*
aspenmogul 2 years ago
So any of that matters if the number guy as you like to think of him is dead-ass wrong?
Numbers only mean something if they uh, mean something.
Read Schiff's book before you flap your gums.
bobdole57 2 years ago
If anybody bought gold at 1200 and thought it was wise to sell at 1100, they have more money than brains, thats for sure.
Gold would have to drop a lot, and I mean a lot, and be down for a long time and I would really really have to need the dollars for me to ever sell it at a numerical loss.
bobdole57 2 years ago
you have to have a death tax to avoid an oligarchy based on wealth
ph4rcyd3r 2 years ago
Says who? Why not have an economy where people who fuck up are allowed to fail and people who succeed have a chance at getting rich?
If AIG or whatever was allowed to fail, I guarantee you no oligarchy would result.
bobdole57 2 years ago
There was no moral hazard with AIG. The executives earned huge salaries and bonuses for those temporary paper gains that evaporated when reality caught up to them. They didn't care if their companies lived or died.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
AIG was an example.
Also, if AIG and all the execs had to operate in a real economy leading up to this clusterfuck, they never could have gotten so rich ripping people off anyway. The problem wouldn't exist and thus wouldn't need to be solved by taxing people.
If Austrian's ruled the world, every complaint you have becomes essentially moot.
bobdole57 2 years ago
Very wrong. Even in the game Second Life, where players spent real money for game money, the banks failed, costing hundreds of millions of real dollars. There was no regulation of business in the game at all. Banks invested deposits anyway they saw fit and supply and demand determined the prices of everything. Banks naturally fail.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
So you are trying to compare a real economy to a phony economy in a game that rests on top of a real phony economy?
For some reason, under any scrutiny, I don't think Second Life qualifies as an Austrian style economic system. its more like a joke really.
bobdole57 2 years ago
Especially since in Second Life, there is no actual productive capacity at all, no need to eat. No fear of dying. No actual legitimate incentive to do anything.
Also, most of the people who play it are morons.
bobdole57 2 years ago
The economy was still relatively well off when the Second Life meltdowns occurred. Yes, we were heading to a bad place, but there was still minimal money hoarding.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
It's not productive capacity that matters, unless you define it as utility. The utility came from the enjoyment of the game, where as with productivity, its the enjoyment or amelioration received when you can buy what you want.
Its' all about reinforcement, which is something some economists forget about.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
What I find most interesting is that you think because some banks failed in a game that it is a legit argument.
Go to Obama and tell him that, let me know what he says, ok?
or go make your own game using your ideas, let me know how well it works.
Jesus, I don't care what happened in second life, i can look at my own country, or other REAL countries and see what has happened. I can use our OWN REAL HISTORY and see what has happened.
Second life my ass.
bobdole57 2 years ago
It's an example of how unregulated banks fail on their own. The same was true during the free banking era in the US. There were plenty of failures with minimal, if any government regulation during long stretches of that period.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
In second life, the economy depends on people putting real world money into second life. With out people trading real world dollars for second life currency, the system necessarily fails. It is not a real economy in second life. No one makes anything, no physical commodities exist.
As a result, when the big crash happened, people stop putting money into second life. That is why the banks failed in the game. it was our economy that caused second life's economy to fail. it was not independent.
bobdole57 2 years ago
The Second Life failures happened before the money hoarding in the US and elsewhere.
Banks fail because everyone temporarily benefits from irresonsible policies on the way up, but few know how to get out in time. As a matter of fact, a majority of people think they know more about the economy than people on average. Obviously not true. Most people define knowledge and intelligence through their own personal lenses.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Oh sure, obviously the second life banking crisis (funny even saying that) happened during peak spending in the US economy... Yeah, right and I'm the pope.
Second life is a piss poor way to simulate an economy since the whole idea of it is basically Moral hazard. There are no accurate market forces in a game where nothing actually matters..
bobdole57 2 years ago
No moral hazard is right. And yet, the banks failed anyway and costs depositors hundreds of millions of dollars.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
No moral hazard? the whole thing IS moral hazard.
Do you need to eat in a game? Whats the worst thing that happens, you die in a game?
Second life can't even approach real life decisions people have to make.
bobdole57 2 years ago
Real money can be earned and lost in the game and real people lost real money.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Real money can be lost at a horse track too, doesn't mean it accurately represents the entire workings of the economy.
bobdole57 2 years ago
It does represent some ways humans act on intermittent reinforcement schedules, which can have implications for investment activity, etc. So, there are certainly broader implications.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Still, Second Life can't be used to 'disprove' austrian theory because it isn't a valid application of it.
bobdole57 2 years ago
I still can't believe we are talking about using second life as an example of austrian economics. there are so damn many problems with the comparison it is totally pointless.
next you are going to tell me the Linden Dollar is on a gold standard, and that that failed.
bobdole57 2 years ago
I have had a long standing theory that all the problems we try to fix are created by trying to fix other problems that shouldn't even existed.
The net effect is, all the stuff you like to bitch about was caused by people who think like you, creating new taxes, trying to even out wage gaps and shit years ago.
You cause these problems.
bobdole57 2 years ago
If that's true, then why is it that economic times were so good in the 50s despite a top income tax rate of 90%? Real incomes increased for the bottom 80%,, fueling the largest move from poverty to middle class living in our history. As the top rates came down, eventually to around 30% under Reagan, the bottom 80% of Americans saw their real wages stagnate or diminish.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Perhaps you aren't aware that when the top income tax was 90% no one paid even close to that. They paid less than our percentages now despite the "official rate." Look it up, since you like numbers so much.
bobdole57 2 years ago
The top rate was still above 30%.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Far cry from 90%
Also, back in them thar days, 70% of our economy wasn't based on buying useless Chinese garbage. We actually made things in the US that people bought, including foreigners.
Also, prior to 1971, there was some convertibility between the dollar and precious metals. Since 1971, the dollar lost something like 80% of its 1900 value.
That is why things suck now, taxes are basically irrelevant, however wrong they are.
bobdole57 2 years ago
I agree with you 100% I hope congress hears you when you become senate I know we the people do.
NewEraRevolution 2 years ago 2
"the dollar could certainly rally enough to sway the opinion of traders..."
...or voters.
If the dollar doesn't plummet next year, or if unemployment abates, Peter's gonna have a tough time making his case against Dodd. Remember, the stimulus was designed so that most of the money is spent in 2010. I highly doubt that was coincidence.
JoshuaSethComposer 2 years ago 3