"Why are these people not working? It's not because there's no demand, there are plenty of things that Americans want, but they don't have." at 7:00. Great point!
Trying to profit from economic turmoil is like being on board the Titanic and taking bets on when it will sink. Being on the high point of the Titanic does not save you. We're in this together. For the clearest and simplest explanation yet of our monetary system, watch the YouTube video WHY WE ARE IN SO MUCH DEBT, and give it a thumbs up. Highly recommended.
@silvercelli our economy policy destroyed made in America and as for regulation, waht about the legacy of creditor rescue. Historically America has perverted the incentive structure of creditors by bailing them out, why shouldn't they take excessive risks?
@seraphimWILLunite bahaaah! yeah i guess it all just depends on who's got the deepest pockets at a time when everybody's too retarded to care or no achievements are occuring cause a war is happeneing.
The only thing I dont agree with is your veiw on union labour as a whole. It is hard to compete with cheaper oversea labour rates but its even harder to compete with companys in China that follow minimal or no safety/enviromental regulations. As such can underbid our homegrown industries. If we could use child labour or dump toxic waste into rivers we could surely drive a more competitive bargain in the marketplace.
schiffs reasoning is a bit simple. government money is allways spend by orders to business. so business profits from government money. if not so business and stockmarket would implode by inertion.
I agree that the rest of the world will recover faster than the US , the only thing that brought the US out of a depression was low interest rates. Well the interest rates are at a 40 year low... heheheheh
Same thing in california they are repaving the roads , everywhere ! Building ramps for the handycaps over freeways , and making 500 dollar metal signs , saying your stimulus money at work... But still no EDD ofices...And no real jobs being created.
I agree another stimulus is not going to save the economy , only creating jobs in the US will , and bringing back small business. I have read that corporations are now laying off people to keep the profit up for the CEOs , and even in hard time the ceos are making bank. Well how is the economy going to recover from this type of thought.
I don’t claim to have most of the answers about fixing our economy, but I would like to talk to Obama about it. However, Obama would need to first visit a library and read two or more books about government economics. Then we could almost talk on a level intellect.
silvercelli - Banks would never land money IF goverment was not guarantee their risky lending. YOU think 80 -90 year OLD financial institutions in USA would be doing this if Goverment did not stand behind them.
I have a question. . . . instead of paying people to dig ditches, why don't we pay people to GO TO SCHOOL! At least that way, we create something (knowledge). As a matter of fact, if we have any stimulus, it should ALL go to some form of skills training. Great piece, Peter.
@cmanw I say send ppl to school to became economists, because whatever advice the past few administrations (since 1910) have been getting on macroeconomics have been flat out wrong. Like letting an independent bank control the financial system, getting off the gold standard, fannie & freddie, useless wars, etc. Its obvious that not nearly enough americans have the understanding of money, the economy, and how it functions. Once ppl are educated, a lot of the moral hazard wouldn't happen.
@MillzTheAthlete Yep, so much of the trouble is just teaching people stuff that some teacher never did. Even among people considered intellectual there is a serious lack of understanding,
@cmanw We do have a lot of education subsidies, but I think you're on the right track. Anything is better than "digging ditches". My thinking is, find businesses that are doing well and producing, and reward them, allowing them to expand and hire more workers. And especially give prefereces to companies that export, allowing us to increase our income from oversees.
I wonder in which direction the economy is going to go after the elections in November. Are we still going to pay people to dig a hole and then cover it back up
@a4finger What ever direction Bernanke takes it, either do one of two things. 1. Keep printing money and raise interest rates or 2. Keep printing money and lower interest rates (which is at near 0%). My guess, whatever is decided to do, it will be wrong. As long as the Federal Reserve is running the show, the only certainty is that the US dollar will depreciate in value. 1-3% per year they say is a healthy depreciation. Either get money fast and invest or maybe get paid in gold or oil.
@MillzTheAthlete I agree, too bad Peter Schiff lost the senate race =/ But I'm hopeful for 2012, and I'm really hopeful that Ron Paul will run. I've begun reading his book "End The Fed" today
Mr Schiff: I am just reading your books ("Crash Proof 2.0" and "How and Economy Grows and Why it Crashes") --> these books are such eye-openers. I am now making all of my friends and family read these books. Bernanke, Greenspan, Obama, Krugman, Buffet etc. have had their fair share of fooling the public - this is now over.
He had me until unemployment. I basically agree with what Peter said about the problems with unemployment, but to ignore the middle class, who are 2/3 of the customer base, would hurt the economy unnecessarily. Why eliminate more customers because of an overreaction to bad govt spending policies? If the onus was on correcting the real issues of the economy, the incentives to receive benefits will be gone. The benefits are there to keep the mob at bay from widespread panic & chaos.
@athy0 Unemployment benefits... the out of work middle class has to stay afloat bcuz that is the consumer base. Instead of worrying about the incentives to stay on unemployment, I think Peter needs to focus on creating the incentives to get ppl off unemployment. Businesses need that consumer base to be as active as possible, not broke. All I'm saying is that more ppl need to focus on creating better incentives to get ppl off unemployment than doing away with unemployment benefits.
Don't you think it will take a full generation for investors to lose faith in America and that sentiment alone can pull down the global stock market by means of the US? It is wired in the mindset of people (including investors) that the US is the engine of the world and it will be hard to overcome that sentiment. I think that is one of the reasons for the dollar rally in 08 early 09. How much pull do you think this is capable of?
@silvercelli The regulator is always coopted by the industry they are set up to regulate. Only the market and competition can effectively regulate business. You are a wonderful musician (saw your vid), but have some learning still in economics.
@silvercelli What ever happened to made in America? It became uncompetative because the cost of business here is high and getting higher with every new regulation. As a business you either have to compete, and move to the lowest cost of production area, or you go out of business.
they are never going to regulate things when they are designed to fail anyway. When are people going to wake up. Go and watch myspacesecrets here on youtube, he has more info and very accurate.
The dollar-oil link helps keep the dollar as the universal currency. And because the entire world must use the dollar, you can imagine how that dilutes the inflationary effects seen in America due to the Fed’s printing presses. Thus, the dollar-oil link ensures the Fed’s inflation machine is spread throughout the globe. Without the dollar’s link to oil, the inflation seen in America would be much more severe.
Peter, I want to know when you will practice what you preach and forgo any and all future Social Security and Medicare payments beyond your own tax contributions? Just send the rest (our money) back. After all, it's bankrupting us. While you're at it, since you're running for the Senate, does this mean you will not be using any government money from your salary to pay for health care? And how about getting the government out of the contracts enforcement business? There was no UCC in 1787.
@tonywf WTF are youtalking about. If they take your money by force of law, the least you can do is try to recover some of it. Your reasoning is like saying that if someone steals your wallet, you are condoning theft if you ask for it back.
@GaryVolts And that is exactly what I am asking for on the part of those who do not believe in the legitimacy of what we are spending our money on to begin with, to be consistent and practice what they preach for others with regards to the spending of my money.
@tonywf They would be happily opt out of the benefit if you let them out of the payment. Basically make social security participation voluntary which he would support. What you're asking is for them to pay into the system, but not get their money back. Thats kind of silly.
@GaryVolts You don't get it, I'm saying you should practice what you preach and opt-out by forgoing any payments beyond your own tax contributions. You take in more than you contribute in Social Security within the first five years as a recipient. By refusing to take in more than you contribute to the program, you're declaring that you're going continue to soak off me, so long as everyone else continues to do so, using the same masses you judge as your cover to take my money.
Peter seems to be the only one standing for the american attitude, meaning: let the private sector do business and build up the country and keep government influence as little as necessary
Shelbsizm...totaly agree we should be pulling together to stablize our carbon footprint at 350ppm but this old school economic mind set is acting like an evil troll controlling the bridge we have to cross if our collective moral intelligence is to prevail. we can structure the new economy around 350ppm and be better off by a factor of 10 in a 100 years.
Schiff, everyone wants to work towards something good. More over, everyone wants to survive.
In this day and age, the way the economy has replaced our conscience and profits trump all of our values , nearly every "job" is actually contributing to the short term demise of planet earth.
We are self destructive beyond measure. Admit it: The economic practice of finding and using resources as fast as possible is archaic and fool hearty.
The whole thing needs to change, we've created a monster.
Actually it makes sense to dig ditches and fill them up again, but you would have to put Krugman and other economist like him inside one - that would be a huge gain for the whole economy.
@MushroomCloud666 UNFAIR! You are offering to do something productive, not only USA, other countries who hold US debt would win from this, this is actually a valid trade re-balancing service! You can't do that :)
@silvercelli you said it yourself, but missed the point. Without the government guarantees provided by the FDIC and Fannie and Freddie, the risky bets you refer to never would have been made in the first place. Once the government made the mistake of providing guarantees, it needed to regulate the banks. But the mistake was not the failure to guard against the moral hazards the guarantees created, but in providing the guarantees in the first place.
@SchiffReport - Well said! Left to their own devices, banks would NEVER make so many risky loans, precisely because they ARE risky and liable to lose money. The only reason they did so was because the gov't offered YOUR tax dollars to protect them if things went bad. This is govt's fault, pure and simple. They need to siddown and shaddup.
And if the government hadn't done its job, then the banks would neither need to nor dare to speculate.
Which is better: to make financial institutions want to take on huge risks through fiat currency manipulation and protectionism, and then prevent them from doing so with a complex set of arbitrary rules, usually to be applied ex post facto and based on intention - or to allow them to pursue safe, productive long-term investments in the first place?
@silvercelli Somebody sold you a kettle of rotting fish. When they say "Lack of Regulation" they mean lack of regulations to battle the unintended consequences of the prior round of regulation. It's not that there is not enough regulation but that there is to much tinkering that causes a perceived need for additional regulation. We are regulating ourselves to economic death.
Do you think that there is any mal investment due to government regulation?
Schiff is so accurate and articulate on his economic updates. Please keep them coming. Another word that people should be aware of is Quantitative Easing. I just blogged about it.
What data is there for a outside US, "global improvment"? Europe is screwed. Credit from savings? The global governments have all agreed in unison, to go to deficit spending, borrowing to fix roads to keep the banks afloat. They don't care. It's like the begining of the EEC. It was called 'ezee' money.
Keep the great vlog's coming Peter...Look forward to them...Way up here in Canada..I can't believe the way Obama is spending....it's obvious to me that they are intentionally crashing the economy....
Peter thank you for continuing to do these video blogs. They are really great and so informative. How can anyone believe the ridiculous things that this Krugman guy is saying. Noble prize in economics...give me a break!
Hey Peter, just saw your WSJ video. They tried to descredit you subtly in every way possible. Clearly not unbiased reporting. Anyways, I recently found this sit on dog ownership: dogbreedinfo com I don't know if you use a professional trainer, but that's me only half poking fun if you don't.
Is it just me or is Peter Schiff really getting many more views these days? Is it because of his senate run he got people interested? 6,200 views so soon. Seems big to me. Correct me if I'm wrong...
I wonder, what does Peter think is the worst things a government can do to the economy to damage it the most long term? And how close are the US government to that worst case scenario?
Repair roads that ARE in bad shape (and not simply adjacent to Wall St or politician's homes). Build some new power plants. Build any sort of public infrastructure, and ensure a Made in the USA stamp on every brick and bucket of mortar.
But we all know this is a banker takeover. We're well past the point of "well, maybe they're just making mistakes."
one thing i dont understsnd even after reading your three books is ,i dont understand how we would have had the technological and lifestyle advances without expanding the money supply.would this still have happened on a gold standard?if so does it just mean things wouldnt cost as much ,but still exist?
@eeen85 Look at Hong Kong, where there are 3 private banks who issue money except for the city's government.
Money is a token of exchange for a good that is created, so once a product is created, a private institution could also create a new note that presents value of this item on the market, this way the item would exist, and a token would exist that presented the value created.
Gov't doesn't produce anything but prints tokens. In terms of gold, things would get cheaper.
@eeen85 I don't think we'd have had the same technological advances that are driven by a consumer economy but I don't neccesarily see that as a bad thing. Sure Americans may not have had the luxury of having such large houses, SUVs and household appliances/luxuries that they have now, but I'd trade all those things for a sound economy where needs are are easily met through work and savings and wants and desires are met through more work and savings, rather than loans and cheap credit
@maxine2win Are you nuts? Throughout history ALL fiat currencies have gone to 0. Why do you think the constitution says "only gold and silver may be legal tender"? It's because the founding fathers understood the dangers of fiat currencies and hyperinflation (remember the continental dollar?). You are ignoring history at your own peril - much like what the government is doing today.
@maxine2win Deflation is the best thing that happens for consumers.
Government printing money is the exact wrong way to create currency. Currency is a token of some amount of value, and it can be printed when a new item/thing/good is produced by the company that produced it, and the value of the token could be equal to value of the newly produced good minus the value of all other components that went into production of that good.
So whatever the added value is, can be printed by the company.
@maxine2win Of-course money eventually loses value in that system, when it's printed only when value is added, because as value of a newly produced good diminishes over time due to tear/wear, or it braking, any reasons, the value of the added token (fiat currency) should also diminish.
This would be the natural inflation, not caused by printing cash in itself. In a system like that the value of money would deteriorate at much lower rate than what we have now with all printing and no production
@romanmir01 Its the fractional reserve banking system also creating the inflation. So even if no money is created, the circulation of money through the system will still cause inflation with the creation of credit. Though over time, the inflation will level off, inflation wouldn't stop simply by pushing an off button.
Deflation will also do massive harm if unchecked. It will lower wages along with prices which defeats the purpose. So when the market corrects itself, ppl are poorer.
@MillzTheAthlete there is no problem with deflation at all, unless there is some depression. But whether depression is inflationary or deflationary, the problems is different from just inflation or deflation existing in the first place, the problem is not about value of money, it's about value of output created by economy, so economy then needs to restructure (firms fail, gov't reduces, people get fired), so eventually the economy restructures by creating new firms that hire people again.
@romanmir01 You are right and wrong. Of course there are problems with inflation and deflation. There are symptoms to the illness. I agree curing the illness gets rid of the symptoms but you just don't ignore the symptoms. You manage them.
Frac-Reserve Banking system itself breeds moral hazard. That is why it should be eliminated. 9:1 is ridiculous... but 3:1 isn't stable... just less ridiculous. 1:1 is stable. Moral hazard is gets created to easily in that system.
@MillzTheAthlete inflation and deflation are inevitable, there is no such system that keeps value of all things equal and or completely proportionate at all times.
People are born and people die, there are climate changes, resources are mined, and new are found, new ideas appear, new products are invented, wars start, wars stop, people invest or spend everything, there are fires and floods and new lands, etc.
With no fractional reserve the interest rates are very high, that's also a problem
@MillzTheAthlete So I disagree that in themselves inflation and deflation are symptoms of illness, well, they are no more symptoms of illness than you breathing in and out while you are still alive.
Economy is constantly adjusting, some firms must fail, some succeed, whatever the reasons. During boom, many firms ride on each other's success, excesses are created, during bust those excesses are cut.
So no, I do not see deflation in itself as a bad thing or inflation in itself as a bad thing.
@MillzTheAthlete As I said, inflation and deflation both happen naturally, as items are produced and value is added, money can be added to the system, but items fall apart, are thrown away, degrade, go out of style, and their value disappears, while cash stays
This creates natural inflation.
Natural deflation is wonderful, it really should mean that new efficiencies are found, so prices can be lowered, it's great for customers.
1:1 banking will diminish value of money due to natural inflation
@MillzTheAthlete and 1:1 banking keeps interest rates very high, not allowing small businesses to form as easily, is that a bad or a good thing, that's what the market is for to decide.
@MillzTheAthlete Fractional reserve banking also has its place, of-course FDIC and gov't created moral hazard is the reason why there is no competition between banks for customers. Customers spend less time worrying about which bank to do business with than worrying about which vacuum cleaner to buy. Fractional reserve banking in itself can be balanced by market, maybe 5:1 is ok, maybe 6:1 is too much, maybe 3:1 gives most stability while still allowing credit and sane interest rates.
@romanmir01-- The govt doesn't control monetary policy. The Fed does. The Fed sets that 9:1 rate. The Fed controls prices and interest rates, not the market, govt or the FDIC. Listen, macroeconomics is simply. A nation's economy is only as strong as the value of its currency, the amount of its production, and the wealth of its customer. Right now... our currency is continuously devalued, we are not producing, and our customer base is broke. Its not hard to figure out.
@MillzTheAthlete I am missing your point, except that yes, the Fed sets fractional ratio instead of allowing market to do so, the Fed prints money instead of private entities doing so when they add value into the system. Yes, I see that as the main reason that Free Market is not working, people are not allowing it to work, so economy is failing because it is not relying on free market adjustments and balances.
@romanmir01 Economy is failing because of moral hazard. Any system could theoretically work without factoring in moral hazard. With the existence of moral hazard, good ppl will do bad things when not presented with consequences. The system now breeds moral hazard. This shouldn't shock you, the system wasn't created by moral men... it was created by rich bankers on an island named Jeckyll (I couldnt make that sh*t up). So expecting it to function where everyone can benefit is ridiculous.
@MillzTheAthlete Well, nothing shocks me, I went through dissolution of my country of origin, so just an economic failure, oh well.
But moral hazard has nothing to do with men being moral or immoral, as a fact, FDIC and similar laws that created moral hazard were created with best intentions. Road to hell, as they say, is paved with best intentions.
But the actual problem is that gov't always participates in economy of its country creating a situation where it's profitable to corrupt gov't.
@romanmir01 Our govt doesn't create money. The Fed does. The Fed is independent from our govt so create what it wants and answers to no one. Fed deals in secret with other central banks. The FDIC and Govt don't control the system...they adjust the rules inwhich the system functions. They are the GPS, the Fed is driving the car. The Fed can tell the govt to go f**k itself and do whatever it wants. Like bailout friend and countries on the taxpayers dime.
@MillzTheAthlete FDIC in itself is a moral hazard, that's what I meant. Gov't is terrible at assessing risk, Bernanke didn't understand there was a housing bubble while he was in the middle of it. FDIC is a moral hazard, because it promises to bail out your deposits, so it allows a bank not to bother earning customers' trust and allows bank customers not to bother finding out how the bank does its business.
Fed can be dissolved by the gov't, it happened before, but gov't chooses not to.
@MillzTheAthlete FDIC is insuring bank deposits while gov't can't figure out simple things like: there is a credit/housing bubble! Madoff is running a pyramid scheme!
So gov't is terrible at assessing risk, yet it's running an insurance company? Right.
@romanmir01 Wrong, The Fed is running the show. Bernanke controls votes... Obama and funky bunch in Washington dance to the fed's tune. They don't have the power nor the balls to dissolve the fed. Not enough Ron Pauls in the world.
@MillzTheAthlete No, by law they can dissolve the Fed. 1828 Andrew Jackson dissolved the Second Bank of USA. So it has happened before. It's possible for the US Congress to dissolve the Fed, I am not saying they will or will not do so, I believe they will not, but they can.
@romanmir01 Inflation and deflation are symptoms of the current system. This isn't a free market system. This is a bank controlled economy. You are right, inflation and deflation wouldn't matter in a free market because the free market basically adjusts itself like an evenly waving flow chart. But thats the today's economy. The market is constantly being tampered with, bubbles are artificially being created and burst, and the fed blames it on the banks & wall street. They run both.
@romanmir01 Today's system is stealing from middle america. You are saying that we should tell the robbers to steal a little bit because if you steal too much, there is going to be bad. The robbers are going to take as much as possible. I'm saying they shouldn't be stealing at all. Fractional Reserve Banking is stealing from tax payers. You can limit what they take, but its morally wrong to steal in the first place.
@MillzTheAthlete hold on, in case of an actual free market, you'd have ability to choose a bank that kept the ratio 1:1.
I am not telling the banks what to do, I am saying market figures this out if it's left to its devices and not manipulated by super-powerful influences. So I am against anybody telling the banks how to do business, of-course as long as there is actual competition in the industry, so it wouldn't be a gov't compelling a bank to behave, but it would be choice of the customers.
@romanmir01 Agree... but this is not a free market. The Fed tells the banks what to do. The Fed bailouts out banks but holds onto the money while its on the bailed out banks' books. Then through frac-reserve loans out that money to bailout more banks and countries. It is beyond moral hazard and to expect companies not to practice in moral hazard is hypocritical.
@MillzTheAthlete well of-course it is hypocritical and stupid. A company is given free money by a government that will not take that money.... I don't know who'd be that stupid, right?
@MillzTheAthlete well, I am all for hitting the kill switch on the gov't spending and the Fed itself. But I don't see what's wrong with a private bank offering a service, where you can deposit your money knowing that the bank only keeps 30% of your deposit while investing the rest if the bank gives you an incentive - like lower fees, maybe some percentage points from what is made on your money, something like that.
You can always put your money into a safety deposit box in a bank even today
@romanmir01 I'm all for private banking and lowering the ratio. Its better than what we have now as long as the moral hazard is vastly limited. Lowering the ratio puts wealth (not just money) into the middle class which is 2/3 of customers. Private banking is good only if the Fed is out the way. Banks now are extensions of the Fed, act more like sub-banks that are at the mercy of the Fed instead of a privately owned business. I think ending the fed and limiting the moral hazard is a start.
@romanmir01 i dont trust banks to make good investments. they are going to bet my money collect mad interest and give me .25% per year? Yeah i think there is a greater than .25% chance they lose all my money each year.
@DickeyRogers Makes sense, of-course you base you data on the banks that are insured by FDIC, so take into account the huge moral hazard. But in a normal market (I consider free market to be normal, and what is happening now to be one type of reality) the banks would be much more careful investing money. Without moral hazard there is much less opportunity for mal-investment, but of-course nobody is 100% certain of anything.
So in your case in a free market you'd choose a bank with 1:1 ratio
@eeen85 When you look at the major technological advances that have happened, such as the automobile, airplane, etc, were all accomplished while the USD was on the gold standard. Remember, the USD went off of the gold standard in 1971, since then the USD has lost like 95% of its purchasing power.
While on a gold standard the money supply will still grow, just not out of control as it does today. The gold standard keeps government restrained and gives purchasing power to the people.
I'm a civil engineer and by it's nature spending on infrastructure is ill-suited to short-term economic stimuls spending. Infrastructure needs to be planned over many years. Just the preliminary studies, environmental impact studies and engineering can take several years. Using infrastructure spending as short-term stimulus is like planting a tree because it's raining today and you don't have an umbrella with you.
Stop lumping all regulation together. Regulation is like medicine - for the most part it's not needed and too much will harm you, the wrong type may kill you, but the correct amount and type will save you. And when you're sick, pretending like all medicine is bad may kill you as well.
@juujuuuujj But the people who make regulation are more like honey caners than doctors. And we all know when your canning goods you tend to lick your fingers.
I agree, that's why there should be more oversight on regulators, so they don't get bribed by the industry they're regulating. There are also honest and smart regulators who wouldn't betray the people no matter what - like William K. Black
why did we need these stimuluses (stimuli, whichever) in the first place? because of a lack of regulation in the banking industry. how ironic to say more de-regulation is the answer.
we should've learned now that in the long-run the cost of regulation is far less to taxpayers than the cost of corruption, carelessness, irresponsibilty, and inaccountability.
de-regulation serves the interests of the very same unscrupulous people that the bail-outs are bailing out.
@dunkafelic We dont need stimulus unless you want to extend the recession. The cost of regulation is very high, as in millions of jobs shipped overseas because of it. Some reg is good, most is just to maintain the bureaucracy and keep the welfare( guaranteed left wing votes) flowing.
@pismo10 I understand there is a political aspect to regulation/de-regulation on both sides, and that it can have somewhat of a negative impact on efficiency, etc. however I feel there are more significant and potentially economically devastating costs associated with letting markets & industries go unregulated.
if one were to do an objective longitudinal study on the long-term macro-economic effects of regulation vs. de-regulation, I think regulation would prove to be less costly for society.
@dunkafelic I respectfully could not disagree more. Over regulation is what is killing our economy and shipping jobs by the millions overseas. Your study would be run by very left wing biased academics and would show govt and regulation are the keys to the perfect utopian society when just the opposite is true, as 5000 years of history has shown.
@pismo10 one has to take into account the human element. sure, in an ideal world markets and industries would be left unobstructed and could self-regulate. that would be best for everyone. however we don't live in an ideal world, so the human element has to be taken into consideration. the truth is that corporations if left unregulated WILL cut corners in order to lower their overhead and maximize profits. for example, many corporations WILL pollute the environment if it saves costs.
I think Keynesian economics wasn't invented by an elitist, Keyenes, and the purpose was to redistribute wealth from the middle class to the poor; creating a larger gap between the well-connected wealthy class and the poor.
The reason is to weaken the middle class so there are fewer who can influence the masses and expose corruption; The elite view the middle class as a threat
This is apparent from Krugman's suggestions: Who's affected most by subsidizing of hole-digging? -- The middle class!
ooh, wait, maybe Krugman has a point after all. By ensuring resources are consumed to produce nothing and by ensuring only tax dollars are used to employ everyone, let's print up anther 10 trillion in paper every year on top, we'll never have to worry about the economy ever again. Because after that, there won't be an economy.
holy crap. 2 + 2 = 4. How these people can't count to 4 but then DO think they can tell all of us, and Peter Schiff, what makes economic sense ... it BOGGLES THE MIND
why can't ppl see that the inefficiency Peter is talking about is a planned, deliberate paving of a road to socialism.... I mean socialism=inefficiency!
im glad he mentioned reich. i like reich, and i like peter schiff. but i think peter schiff is making more sense these days.
koolangeldude1 6 months ago
The stock market is another bubble.
pretorious700 1 year ago
might have been the worst august but it turned into the best september since 1939
fasteddie847 1 year ago
"Why are these people not working? It's not because there's no demand, there are plenty of things that Americans want, but they don't have." at 7:00. Great point!
oledavidostli 1 year ago
Trying to profit from economic turmoil is like being on board the Titanic and taking bets on when it will sink. Being on the high point of the Titanic does not save you. We're in this together. For the clearest and simplest explanation yet of our monetary system, watch the YouTube video WHY WE ARE IN SO MUCH DEBT, and give it a thumbs up. Highly recommended.
SilentNoMorePubs 1 year ago
I think you should learn to tie a windsor knot. Thats a lazy way to tie a tie and its ugly. Im just sayn...
RudyYorio 1 year ago
@silvercelli our economy policy destroyed made in America and as for regulation, waht about the legacy of creditor rescue. Historically America has perverted the incentive structure of creditors by bailing them out, why shouldn't they take excessive risks?
rayyf69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What a nut job Schiff is. You see his campaign commercials ?
A total off the wall nut.
He predicted the housing market would tank. BIG FUCKIN DEAL.
High school kids knew that was gonna happen.
tom6612 1 year ago
........and OBAMA and KRUGMAN got the nobel prize??? i think i'm gonna be SICK.
samm1809 1 year ago
@samm1809 Hitler and Stalin won Man of The Year by time Magazine. As did Ben Bernanke in (2009 I think...).
Just a thought.
seraphimWILLunite 1 year ago
@seraphimWILLunite bahaaah! yeah i guess it all just depends on who's got the deepest pockets at a time when everybody's too retarded to care or no achievements are occuring cause a war is happeneing.
samm1809 1 year ago
@samm1809 Yup yup. Statism is one of the banes of humanity. The State will aways commend their Statist wolves.
Peace brother.
seraphimWILLunite 1 year ago
This is great...
Goodmorningforex 1 year ago
peter,
your sign is crooked
it looks too amateurish
But you re the best
alex630710 1 year ago
Too bad the private sector is spending all its money on CEO raises. I'd rather they dug ditches.
baigandine 1 year ago
bah, bah...paul knows better.
mcgloinm 1 year ago
Why is the European recovery any more real? They're swarming in debt. Just because a few started some austerity measures hasn't changed that fact.
baigandine 1 year ago
The only thing I dont agree with is your veiw on union labour as a whole. It is hard to compete with cheaper oversea labour rates but its even harder to compete with companys in China that follow minimal or no safety/enviromental regulations. As such can underbid our homegrown industries. If we could use child labour or dump toxic waste into rivers we could surely drive a more competitive bargain in the marketplace.
Turnedleaf 1 year ago
Its hilarious, just hilarious, to watch the insanity coming out of DC...
Why the people continue to look to DC for answers is beyond me.
But then again, government is the one with the check book,,,,,,,,,
rllang01 1 year ago
Its the large company CEO that are doing the laying off , some are doing this as necessity and others are doing it for executive and CEO profit.
What is going on now is strictly for profit...
ibelucky1 1 year ago
refrain , and that's the CEO's for the large companies that have high overhead that's doing the lay offs for profit.
Their are good CEO and bad CEO , the ones doing the lay offs are the larger companies...they do this to keep showing profits.
but i think we will see more iof this as things tighten up.. and it will really tighten up as the interest rates rise..
i don't think we will see them rise in the election year , but next year is going to be real interesting..
ibelucky1 1 year ago
If the Gov hadn't been bailing out wallstreet and the banks for 20+ years, they wouldn't have thought it safe to be so risky
Wallstreet knew if something went wrong, they would be bailed out
In the long run, who was right? Who REALLY made a risky bet?
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
schiffs reasoning is a bit simple. government money is allways spend by orders to business. so business profits from government money. if not so business and stockmarket would implode by inertion.
envanje 1 year ago
CA has 12% unemployment rate , a 20 billion deficit , building roads with stimulus , high welfare , morons running the state.
I just have a bad feeling about CA , on top of the US economy , i have a feeling that CA is going to be hit hard.
I know you have an office in southern CA , be carefull.
Wife and i are moving north about 600 miles from sac.
I feel that CA is unmanagable , and they need to split it like north and south carolina.
I will be back , when i get a chance.
ibelucky1 1 year ago
I agree that the rest of the world will recover faster than the US , the only thing that brought the US out of a depression was low interest rates. Well the interest rates are at a 40 year low... heheheheh
Same thing in california they are repaving the roads , everywhere ! Building ramps for the handycaps over freeways , and making 500 dollar metal signs , saying your stimulus money at work... But still no EDD ofices...And no real jobs being created.
ibelucky1 1 year ago
I agree another stimulus is not going to save the economy , only creating jobs in the US will , and bringing back small business. I have read that corporations are now laying off people to keep the profit up for the CEOs , and even in hard time the ceos are making bank. Well how is the economy going to recover from this type of thought.
ibelucky1 1 year ago
I don’t claim to have most of the answers about fixing our economy, but I would like to talk to Obama about it. However, Obama would need to first visit a library and read two or more books about government economics. Then we could almost talk on a level intellect.
geofiles 1 year ago
silvercelli - Banks would never land money IF goverment was not guarantee their risky lending. YOU think 80 -90 year OLD financial institutions in USA would be doing this if Goverment did not stand behind them.
You have to understand that.
aviomaster 1 year ago
I have a question. . . . instead of paying people to dig ditches, why don't we pay people to GO TO SCHOOL! At least that way, we create something (knowledge). As a matter of fact, if we have any stimulus, it should ALL go to some form of skills training. Great piece, Peter.
cmanw 1 year ago
@cmanw I say send ppl to school to became economists, because whatever advice the past few administrations (since 1910) have been getting on macroeconomics have been flat out wrong. Like letting an independent bank control the financial system, getting off the gold standard, fannie & freddie, useless wars, etc. Its obvious that not nearly enough americans have the understanding of money, the economy, and how it functions. Once ppl are educated, a lot of the moral hazard wouldn't happen.
MillzTheAthlete 1 year ago
@MillzTheAthlete Yep, so much of the trouble is just teaching people stuff that some teacher never did. Even among people considered intellectual there is a serious lack of understanding,
mouthpiece200 1 year ago
@cmanw We do have a lot of education subsidies, but I think you're on the right track. Anything is better than "digging ditches". My thinking is, find businesses that are doing well and producing, and reward them, allowing them to expand and hire more workers. And especially give prefereces to companies that export, allowing us to increase our income from oversees.
mouthpiece200 1 year ago
Peter schiff radio show, last Wednesday europac.net/sites/default/files/audio/PeterSchiff_09-01-2010.mp3
Keyguya 1 year ago
I wonder in which direction the economy is going to go after the elections in November. Are we still going to pay people to dig a hole and then cover it back up
a4finger 1 year ago
@a4finger What ever direction Bernanke takes it, either do one of two things. 1. Keep printing money and raise interest rates or 2. Keep printing money and lower interest rates (which is at near 0%). My guess, whatever is decided to do, it will be wrong. As long as the Federal Reserve is running the show, the only certainty is that the US dollar will depreciate in value. 1-3% per year they say is a healthy depreciation. Either get money fast and invest or maybe get paid in gold or oil.
MillzTheAthlete 1 year ago
@MillzTheAthlete I agree, too bad Peter Schiff lost the senate race =/ But I'm hopeful for 2012, and I'm really hopeful that Ron Paul will run. I've begun reading his book "End The Fed" today
a4finger 1 year ago
Mr Schiff: I am just reading your books ("Crash Proof 2.0" and "How and Economy Grows and Why it Crashes") --> these books are such eye-openers. I am now making all of my friends and family read these books. Bernanke, Greenspan, Obama, Krugman, Buffet etc. have had their fair share of fooling the public - this is now over.
DoubleSmoothie 1 year ago
GOLD TO $3400/ozt?
Remeber the 'flash crash'? This is the 'flash spike' in Gold Prices!
Peter, what is your analysis?
FreedomsNurse 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FreedomsNurse tinyurl (dot) com/petergold2010
There is the article
FreedomsNurse 1 year ago
He had me until unemployment. I basically agree with what Peter said about the problems with unemployment, but to ignore the middle class, who are 2/3 of the customer base, would hurt the economy unnecessarily. Why eliminate more customers because of an overreaction to bad govt spending policies? If the onus was on correcting the real issues of the economy, the incentives to receive benefits will be gone. The benefits are there to keep the mob at bay from widespread panic & chaos.
MillzTheAthlete 1 year ago
@MillzTheAthlete
What has what Peter said got to do with destroying the middle class?
athy0 1 year ago
@athy0 Unemployment benefits... the out of work middle class has to stay afloat bcuz that is the consumer base. Instead of worrying about the incentives to stay on unemployment, I think Peter needs to focus on creating the incentives to get ppl off unemployment. Businesses need that consumer base to be as active as possible, not broke. All I'm saying is that more ppl need to focus on creating better incentives to get ppl off unemployment than doing away with unemployment benefits.
MillzTheAthlete 1 year ago
a lot of the guys leaving comments here seem pretty smart. in fact, they may even have gotten used to being The Smartest Guys In The Room.
dunkafelic 1 year ago
5:28 HA HA HA!
stevemcgee99 1 year ago
Don't you think it will take a full generation for investors to lose faith in America and that sentiment alone can pull down the global stock market by means of the US? It is wired in the mindset of people (including investors) that the US is the engine of the world and it will be hard to overcome that sentiment. I think that is one of the reasons for the dollar rally in 08 early 09. How much pull do you think this is capable of?
christo930 1 year ago
@silvercelli The regulator is always coopted by the industry they are set up to regulate. Only the market and competition can effectively regulate business. You are a wonderful musician (saw your vid), but have some learning still in economics.
GaryVolts 1 year ago
@silvercelli What ever happened to made in America? It became uncompetative because the cost of business here is high and getting higher with every new regulation. As a business you either have to compete, and move to the lowest cost of production area, or you go out of business.
GaryVolts 1 year ago
Glad you're are using a professional backdrop Peter, really helps appeal to a wider audience.
useyourdelusion 1 year ago
they are never going to regulate things when they are designed to fail anyway. When are people going to wake up. Go and watch myspacesecrets here on youtube, he has more info and very accurate.
dowtoplunge 1 year ago
Holy cow! I have never seen so much chaos.
This is what you get when you look for the government to solve all of your problems. This is what happens when you live in an artificial world.
When will people look to the individual instead of the government to solve our problems.
Everything the government is doing is making things worse. The war is now the individual and freedom vs the government/socialism/the collective.
Pick your side. I am on the side of freedom and the individual.
bkdmd 1 year ago
Is private equity attracting the public market money?
Chongalulu 1 year ago
Cont...Just another reason Obama and his handlers support the colossal Saudi funded Muhammad
autocratic legacy victory mosque at the gound zero crime scene.
Gaiaseyeforbeauty 1 year ago
The dollar-oil link helps keep the dollar as the universal currency. And because the entire world must use the dollar, you can imagine how that dilutes the inflationary effects seen in America due to the Fed’s printing presses. Thus, the dollar-oil link ensures the Fed’s inflation machine is spread throughout the globe. Without the dollar’s link to oil, the inflation seen in America would be much more severe.
Gaiaseyeforbeauty 1 year ago
Peter, I want to know when you will practice what you preach and forgo any and all future Social Security and Medicare payments beyond your own tax contributions? Just send the rest (our money) back. After all, it's bankrupting us. While you're at it, since you're running for the Senate, does this mean you will not be using any government money from your salary to pay for health care? And how about getting the government out of the contracts enforcement business? There was no UCC in 1787.
tonywf 1 year ago
@tonywf WTF are youtalking about. If they take your money by force of law, the least you can do is try to recover some of it. Your reasoning is like saying that if someone steals your wallet, you are condoning theft if you ask for it back.
GaryVolts 1 year ago
@GaryVolts And that is exactly what I am asking for on the part of those who do not believe in the legitimacy of what we are spending our money on to begin with, to be consistent and practice what they preach for others with regards to the spending of my money.
tonywf 1 year ago
@tonywf They would be happily opt out of the benefit if you let them out of the payment. Basically make social security participation voluntary which he would support. What you're asking is for them to pay into the system, but not get their money back. Thats kind of silly.
GaryVolts 1 year ago
@GaryVolts You don't get it, I'm saying you should practice what you preach and opt-out by forgoing any payments beyond your own tax contributions. You take in more than you contribute in Social Security within the first five years as a recipient. By refusing to take in more than you contribute to the program, you're declaring that you're going continue to soak off me, so long as everyone else continues to do so, using the same masses you judge as your cover to take my money.
tonywf 1 year ago
Peter seems to be the only one standing for the american attitude, meaning: let the private sector do business and build up the country and keep government influence as little as necessary
swas2704 1 year ago 4
Shelbsizm...totaly agree we should be pulling together to stablize our carbon footprint at 350ppm but this old school economic mind set is acting like an evil troll controlling the bridge we have to cross if our collective moral intelligence is to prevail. we can structure the new economy around 350ppm and be better off by a factor of 10 in a 100 years.
Gaiaseyeforbeauty 1 year ago
Schiff, everyone wants to work towards something good. More over, everyone wants to survive.
In this day and age, the way the economy has replaced our conscience and profits trump all of our values , nearly every "job" is actually contributing to the short term demise of planet earth.
We are self destructive beyond measure. Admit it: The economic practice of finding and using resources as fast as possible is archaic and fool hearty.
The whole thing needs to change, we've created a monster.
Shelbzism 1 year ago
Actually it makes sense to dig ditches and fill them up again, but you would have to put Krugman and other economist like him inside one - that would be a huge gain for the whole economy.
MushroomCloud666 1 year ago 3
@MushroomCloud666 UNFAIR! You are offering to do something productive, not only USA, other countries who hold US debt would win from this, this is actually a valid trade re-balancing service! You can't do that :)
romanmir01 1 year ago
@silvercelli you said it yourself, but missed the point. Without the government guarantees provided by the FDIC and Fannie and Freddie, the risky bets you refer to never would have been made in the first place. Once the government made the mistake of providing guarantees, it needed to regulate the banks. But the mistake was not the failure to guard against the moral hazards the guarantees created, but in providing the guarantees in the first place.
SchiffReport 1 year ago 36
@SchiffReport If it wasn't for the FDIC people would keep their money under the mattress.
TheWBAH 1 year ago
@SchiffReport Bravo Peter
aspsingr 1 year ago
@SchiffReport - Well said! Left to their own devices, banks would NEVER make so many risky loans, precisely because they ARE risky and liable to lose money. The only reason they did so was because the gov't offered YOUR tax dollars to protect them if things went bad. This is govt's fault, pure and simple. They need to siddown and shaddup.
nasaguy 1 year ago
@SchiffReport Peter is this really you?
manfries 1 year ago
ok HERE is the best peter schiff rant ever
watch?v=8bG_rzlXsqU
jalexander3 1 year ago
@silvercelli
And if the government hadn't done its job, then the banks would neither need to nor dare to speculate.
Which is better: to make financial institutions want to take on huge risks through fiat currency manipulation and protectionism, and then prevent them from doing so with a complex set of arbitrary rules, usually to be applied ex post facto and based on intention - or to allow them to pursue safe, productive long-term investments in the first place?
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 year ago
@silvercelli Somebody sold you a kettle of rotting fish. When they say "Lack of Regulation" they mean lack of regulations to battle the unintended consequences of the prior round of regulation. It's not that there is not enough regulation but that there is to much tinkering that causes a perceived need for additional regulation. We are regulating ourselves to economic death.
Do you think that there is any mal investment due to government regulation?
vipero00 1 year ago
No economic forecaster is as accurate as Peter.
But of course, its easy to forecast when you understand how it all works, and as we all know, most well known prize winning economists do not lol.
treysparker 1 year ago 2
Schiff is so accurate and articulate on his economic updates. Please keep them coming. Another word that people should be aware of is Quantitative Easing. I just blogged about it.
cherylmacn 1 year ago 2
@cherylmacn Yeah Quantitative Easing is a bullshit code word for "print more money"
Unkn0wnGuy 1 year ago
Schiff for President!
TheConspiracyRealist 1 year ago 3
probably the best peter schiff rant: nbsxןzɹ‾ƃq8=ʌ¿ɥɔʇɐʍ/ɯoɔ˙ǝqnʇnoʎ˙ʍʍʍ//:dʇʇɥ
jalexander3 1 year ago
@jalexander3 OK, if you cant cut and paste it what good is it (the link)?
vipero00 1 year ago
@vipero00 hmm yeah i was told it would work. youtube needs to just allow links
jalexander3 1 year ago
Nazi government.
Downfacingdog 1 year ago
Gerald Celente was far ahead of the game before Krugman the hack.
havoctrend 1 year ago 3
Peter you can post videos longer than 10 minutes. I hate to see you rush to finish by the 10 minute mark every time.
NotThat3 1 year ago
What data is there for a outside US, "global improvment"? Europe is screwed. Credit from savings? The global governments have all agreed in unison, to go to deficit spending, borrowing to fix roads to keep the banks afloat. They don't care. It's like the begining of the EEC. It was called 'ezee' money.
BLynchCAN 1 year ago
Keep the great vlog's coming Peter...Look forward to them...Way up here in Canada..I can't believe the way Obama is spending....it's obvious to me that they are intentionally crashing the economy....
monctonvintageads 1 year ago 2
@monctonvintageads
What a foolish thing to say
'They' are not trying to crash to world economy
They are fighting tooth and nail to keep it from crashing
maxine2win 1 year ago
Peter thank you for continuing to do these video blogs. They are really great and so informative. How can anyone believe the ridiculous things that this Krugman guy is saying. Noble prize in economics...give me a break!
StepUPNJ 1 year ago 2
Can anyone find the Krugman piece from CNBC?
Paulintheoh8 1 year ago
Did Krugman really say that stuff?? What an ass hat.
hummarstra 1 year ago
What do you think about the ISM data on Wednesday, September 1st?
SynergyOfTwo 1 year ago
Hey Peter, just saw your WSJ video. They tried to descredit you subtly in every way possible. Clearly not unbiased reporting. Anyways, I recently found this sit on dog ownership: dogbreedinfo com I don't know if you use a professional trainer, but that's me only half poking fun if you don't.
TheMking36 1 year ago
hahaha I can't believe Krugman's statement.
Thanks Again Peter! I appreciate your V-blogs!
ExhibitMan 1 year ago
Does anyone knows where Peter is Working? :D
I have noooooo idea :o) Keep up a good work Peter!
PNACATTACKdotCOM 1 year ago
I have only one thing to say. This smells like an centrally planned economy!!!
tummas1980 1 year ago
Is it just me or is Peter Schiff really getting many more views these days? Is it because of his senate run he got people interested? 6,200 views so soon. Seems big to me. Correct me if I'm wrong...
TheBrotherMouzone 1 year ago
I wonder, what does Peter think is the worst things a government can do to the economy to damage it the most long term? And how close are the US government to that worst case scenario?
andersottesen 1 year ago
It's not hard to put people to meaningful work.
Repair roads that ARE in bad shape (and not simply adjacent to Wall St or politician's homes). Build some new power plants. Build any sort of public infrastructure, and ensure a Made in the USA stamp on every brick and bucket of mortar.
But we all know this is a banker takeover. We're well past the point of "well, maybe they're just making mistakes."
LordDyhalto 1 year ago
peter you face is Red. It's distracting. lol
richarddbeck 1 year ago
When he said Paul Krugman, I laughed out loud, because I just knew it could only be him.
I think Krugman is well intentioned but completely clueless.
phatcheck 1 year ago 2
What if they increase the IRA first time home buyer withdraw from 10K credit to 50K?
asianliciousonline 1 year ago
Krugman is a bloated gasbag hack.
javabarbarian 1 year ago 3
one thing i dont understsnd even after reading your three books is ,i dont understand how we would have had the technological and lifestyle advances without expanding the money supply.would this still have happened on a gold standard?if so does it just mean things wouldnt cost as much ,but still exist?
eeen85 1 year ago
@eeen85 The exponential growth of information technologies has always continued its trend unabated by economic activity in the past.
RyanB0011 1 year ago
@eeen85 Look at Hong Kong, where there are 3 private banks who issue money except for the city's government.
Money is a token of exchange for a good that is created, so once a product is created, a private institution could also create a new note that presents value of this item on the market, this way the item would exist, and a token would exist that presented the value created.
Gov't doesn't produce anything but prints tokens. In terms of gold, things would get cheaper.
romanmir01 1 year ago 2
@eeen85 I don't think we'd have had the same technological advances that are driven by a consumer economy but I don't neccesarily see that as a bad thing. Sure Americans may not have had the luxury of having such large houses, SUVs and household appliances/luxuries that they have now, but I'd trade all those things for a sound economy where needs are are easily met through work and savings and wants and desires are met through more work and savings, rather than loans and cheap credit
dogatron 1 year ago
@eeen85
You have good instincts eeen85
Anyone who rants against 'fiat' money is very confused.
A central government controlled issue of 'fiat' money is the only way an advanced capitalist industrial economy can function properly.
A growing economy needs a growing money supply to avoid deflation.
Deflation is a very bad thing for a capitalist system.
Now a money supply can be mismanaged but this is no argument against the utility of fiat money.
maxine2win 1 year ago
@maxine2win Are you nuts? Throughout history ALL fiat currencies have gone to 0. Why do you think the constitution says "only gold and silver may be legal tender"? It's because the founding fathers understood the dangers of fiat currencies and hyperinflation (remember the continental dollar?). You are ignoring history at your own peril - much like what the government is doing today.
Unkn0wnGuy 1 year ago 7
@Unkn0wnGuy They're right to be cautious, but we understand more about economics than in 1776.
baigandine 1 year ago
@baigandine I'm not so sure we understand more about economics than in 1776. I would rather have a dollar from 1776 than than a dollar from today.
Unkn0wnGuy 1 year ago
@maxine2win Deflation is the best thing that happens for consumers.
Government printing money is the exact wrong way to create currency. Currency is a token of some amount of value, and it can be printed when a new item/thing/good is produced by the company that produced it, and the value of the token could be equal to value of the newly produced good minus the value of all other components that went into production of that good.
So whatever the added value is, can be printed by the company.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@maxine2win Of-course money eventually loses value in that system, when it's printed only when value is added, because as value of a newly produced good diminishes over time due to tear/wear, or it braking, any reasons, the value of the added token (fiat currency) should also diminish.
This would be the natural inflation, not caused by printing cash in itself. In a system like that the value of money would deteriorate at much lower rate than what we have now with all printing and no production
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Its the fractional reserve banking system also creating the inflation. So even if no money is created, the circulation of money through the system will still cause inflation with the creation of credit. Though over time, the inflation will level off, inflation wouldn't stop simply by pushing an off button.
Deflation will also do massive harm if unchecked. It will lower wages along with prices which defeats the purpose. So when the market corrects itself, ppl are poorer.
MillzTheAthlete 1 year ago
@MillzTheAthlete there is no problem with deflation at all, unless there is some depression. But whether depression is inflationary or deflationary, the problems is different from just inflation or deflation existing in the first place, the problem is not about value of money, it's about value of output created by economy, so economy then needs to restructure (firms fail, gov't reduces, people get fired), so eventually the economy restructures by creating new firms that hire people again.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 You are right and wrong. Of course there are problems with inflation and deflation. There are symptoms to the illness. I agree curing the illness gets rid of the symptoms but you just don't ignore the symptoms. You manage them.
Frac-Reserve Banking system itself breeds moral hazard. That is why it should be eliminated. 9:1 is ridiculous... but 3:1 isn't stable... just less ridiculous. 1:1 is stable. Moral hazard is gets created to easily in that system.
MillzTheAthlete 1 year ago
@MillzTheAthlete inflation and deflation are inevitable, there is no such system that keeps value of all things equal and or completely proportionate at all times.
People are born and people die, there are climate changes, resources are mined, and new are found, new ideas appear, new products are invented, wars start, wars stop, people invest or spend everything, there are fires and floods and new lands, etc.
With no fractional reserve the interest rates are very high, that's also a problem
romanmir01 1 year ago
@MillzTheAthlete So I disagree that in themselves inflation and deflation are symptoms of illness, well, they are no more symptoms of illness than you breathing in and out while you are still alive.
Economy is constantly adjusting, some firms must fail, some succeed, whatever the reasons. During boom, many firms ride on each other's success, excesses are created, during bust those excesses are cut.
So no, I do not see deflation in itself as a bad thing or inflation in itself as a bad thing.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@MillzTheAthlete As I said, inflation and deflation both happen naturally, as items are produced and value is added, money can be added to the system, but items fall apart, are thrown away, degrade, go out of style, and their value disappears, while cash stays
This creates natural inflation.
Natural deflation is wonderful, it really should mean that new efficiencies are found, so prices can be lowered, it's great for customers.
1:1 banking will diminish value of money due to natural inflation
romanmir01 1 year ago
@MillzTheAthlete and 1:1 banking keeps interest rates very high, not allowing small businesses to form as easily, is that a bad or a good thing, that's what the market is for to decide.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@MillzTheAthlete Fractional reserve banking also has its place, of-course FDIC and gov't created moral hazard is the reason why there is no competition between banks for customers. Customers spend less time worrying about which bank to do business with than worrying about which vacuum cleaner to buy. Fractional reserve banking in itself can be balanced by market, maybe 5:1 is ok, maybe 6:1 is too much, maybe 3:1 gives most stability while still allowing credit and sane interest rates.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01-- The govt doesn't control monetary policy. The Fed does. The Fed sets that 9:1 rate. The Fed controls prices and interest rates, not the market, govt or the FDIC. Listen, macroeconomics is simply. A nation's economy is only as strong as the value of its currency, the amount of its production, and the wealth of its customer. Right now... our currency is continuously devalued, we are not producing, and our customer base is broke. Its not hard to figure out.
MillzTheAthlete 1 year ago
@MillzTheAthlete I am missing your point, except that yes, the Fed sets fractional ratio instead of allowing market to do so, the Fed prints money instead of private entities doing so when they add value into the system. Yes, I see that as the main reason that Free Market is not working, people are not allowing it to work, so economy is failing because it is not relying on free market adjustments and balances.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Economy is failing because of moral hazard. Any system could theoretically work without factoring in moral hazard. With the existence of moral hazard, good ppl will do bad things when not presented with consequences. The system now breeds moral hazard. This shouldn't shock you, the system wasn't created by moral men... it was created by rich bankers on an island named Jeckyll (I couldnt make that sh*t up). So expecting it to function where everyone can benefit is ridiculous.
MillzTheAthlete 1 year ago
@MillzTheAthlete Well, nothing shocks me, I went through dissolution of my country of origin, so just an economic failure, oh well.
But moral hazard has nothing to do with men being moral or immoral, as a fact, FDIC and similar laws that created moral hazard were created with best intentions. Road to hell, as they say, is paved with best intentions.
But the actual problem is that gov't always participates in economy of its country creating a situation where it's profitable to corrupt gov't.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Our govt doesn't create money. The Fed does. The Fed is independent from our govt so create what it wants and answers to no one. Fed deals in secret with other central banks. The FDIC and Govt don't control the system...they adjust the rules inwhich the system functions. They are the GPS, the Fed is driving the car. The Fed can tell the govt to go f**k itself and do whatever it wants. Like bailout friend and countries on the taxpayers dime.
MillzTheAthlete 1 year ago
@MillzTheAthlete FDIC in itself is a moral hazard, that's what I meant. Gov't is terrible at assessing risk, Bernanke didn't understand there was a housing bubble while he was in the middle of it. FDIC is a moral hazard, because it promises to bail out your deposits, so it allows a bank not to bother earning customers' trust and allows bank customers not to bother finding out how the bank does its business.
Fed can be dissolved by the gov't, it happened before, but gov't chooses not to.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@MillzTheAthlete FDIC is insuring bank deposits while gov't can't figure out simple things like: there is a credit/housing bubble! Madoff is running a pyramid scheme!
So gov't is terrible at assessing risk, yet it's running an insurance company? Right.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Wrong, The Fed is running the show. Bernanke controls votes... Obama and funky bunch in Washington dance to the fed's tune. They don't have the power nor the balls to dissolve the fed. Not enough Ron Pauls in the world.
MillzTheAthlete 1 year ago
@MillzTheAthlete No, by law they can dissolve the Fed. 1828 Andrew Jackson dissolved the Second Bank of USA. So it has happened before. It's possible for the US Congress to dissolve the Fed, I am not saying they will or will not do so, I believe they will not, but they can.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Inflation and deflation are symptoms of the current system. This isn't a free market system. This is a bank controlled economy. You are right, inflation and deflation wouldn't matter in a free market because the free market basically adjusts itself like an evenly waving flow chart. But thats the today's economy. The market is constantly being tampered with, bubbles are artificially being created and burst, and the fed blames it on the banks & wall street. They run both.
MillzTheAthlete 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Today's system is stealing from middle america. You are saying that we should tell the robbers to steal a little bit because if you steal too much, there is going to be bad. The robbers are going to take as much as possible. I'm saying they shouldn't be stealing at all. Fractional Reserve Banking is stealing from tax payers. You can limit what they take, but its morally wrong to steal in the first place.
MillzTheAthlete 1 year ago
@MillzTheAthlete hold on, in case of an actual free market, you'd have ability to choose a bank that kept the ratio 1:1.
I am not telling the banks what to do, I am saying market figures this out if it's left to its devices and not manipulated by super-powerful influences. So I am against anybody telling the banks how to do business, of-course as long as there is actual competition in the industry, so it wouldn't be a gov't compelling a bank to behave, but it would be choice of the customers.
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 Agree... but this is not a free market. The Fed tells the banks what to do. The Fed bailouts out banks but holds onto the money while its on the bailed out banks' books. Then through frac-reserve loans out that money to bailout more banks and countries. It is beyond moral hazard and to expect companies not to practice in moral hazard is hypocritical.
MillzTheAthlete 1 year ago
@MillzTheAthlete well of-course it is hypocritical and stupid. A company is given free money by a government that will not take that money.... I don't know who'd be that stupid, right?
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 We agree on most of the issues in the economy, but I'm more willing to hit the kill-switch.
MillzTheAthlete 1 year ago
@MillzTheAthlete well, I am all for hitting the kill switch on the gov't spending and the Fed itself. But I don't see what's wrong with a private bank offering a service, where you can deposit your money knowing that the bank only keeps 30% of your deposit while investing the rest if the bank gives you an incentive - like lower fees, maybe some percentage points from what is made on your money, something like that.
You can always put your money into a safety deposit box in a bank even today
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 I'm all for private banking and lowering the ratio. Its better than what we have now as long as the moral hazard is vastly limited. Lowering the ratio puts wealth (not just money) into the middle class which is 2/3 of customers. Private banking is good only if the Fed is out the way. Banks now are extensions of the Fed, act more like sub-banks that are at the mercy of the Fed instead of a privately owned business. I think ending the fed and limiting the moral hazard is a start.
MillzTheAthlete 1 year ago
@romanmir01 i dont trust banks to make good investments. they are going to bet my money collect mad interest and give me .25% per year? Yeah i think there is a greater than .25% chance they lose all my money each year.
DickeyRogers 1 year ago
@DickeyRogers Makes sense, of-course you base you data on the banks that are insured by FDIC, so take into account the huge moral hazard. But in a normal market (I consider free market to be normal, and what is happening now to be one type of reality) the banks would be much more careful investing money. Without moral hazard there is much less opportunity for mal-investment, but of-course nobody is 100% certain of anything.
So in your case in a free market you'd choose a bank with 1:1 ratio
romanmir01 1 year ago
@romanmir01 If i ever see Paul Krugman on the street, Ima lay him out for being a complete moron.
MillzTheAthlete 1 year ago
@eeen85 When you look at the major technological advances that have happened, such as the automobile, airplane, etc, were all accomplished while the USD was on the gold standard. Remember, the USD went off of the gold standard in 1971, since then the USD has lost like 95% of its purchasing power.
While on a gold standard the money supply will still grow, just not out of control as it does today. The gold standard keeps government restrained and gives purchasing power to the people.
Unkn0wnGuy 1 year ago
I watched the CNBC clip. Again, you smoked those fools.
bajoverga 1 year ago
I'm a civil engineer and by it's nature spending on infrastructure is ill-suited to short-term economic stimuls spending. Infrastructure needs to be planned over many years. Just the preliminary studies, environmental impact studies and engineering can take several years. Using infrastructure spending as short-term stimulus is like planting a tree because it's raining today and you don't have an umbrella with you.
Ape65 1 year ago 3
@Ape65 I like that analogy. Thank you.
chiyerano 1 year ago
You make too much sense Peter, but I'm afraid that a woman who orchestrates fake wrestling soap operas gets the vote.
dabruin2 1 year ago
I wish I invested more in my agri ETFs
takerdust 1 year ago
all vids should have that europac.net logo
takerdust 1 year ago
Stop lumping all regulation together. Regulation is like medicine - for the most part it's not needed and too much will harm you, the wrong type may kill you, but the correct amount and type will save you. And when you're sick, pretending like all medicine is bad may kill you as well.
juujuuuujj 1 year ago
@juujuuuujj But the people who make regulation are more like honey caners than doctors. And we all know when your canning goods you tend to lick your fingers.
bereccareanne 1 year ago
@bereccareanne
I agree, that's why there should be more oversight on regulators, so they don't get bribed by the industry they're regulating. There are also honest and smart regulators who wouldn't betray the people no matter what - like William K. Black
juujuuuujj 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As Peter says "economist were created to make the weatherman look good"
Riddlerx333x 1 year ago
Comment removed
Riddlerx333x 1 year ago
Why is this so simple and yet so complex for some people?
Bakkermman 1 year ago
Comment removed
haxxlord 1 year ago
More of Peter's economic philosophy can be found on worlddomination.se.
haxxlord 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@haxxlord
People like Jim Rogers, Marc Faber and Kyle Bass all agree with Schiff.
haxxlord 1 year ago
@haxxlord looks like a good site, thanks
alycephoto 1 year ago
why did we need these stimuluses (stimuli, whichever) in the first place? because of a lack of regulation in the banking industry. how ironic to say more de-regulation is the answer.
we should've learned now that in the long-run the cost of regulation is far less to taxpayers than the cost of corruption, carelessness, irresponsibilty, and inaccountability.
de-regulation serves the interests of the very same unscrupulous people that the bail-outs are bailing out.
is that what we want?
dunkafelic 1 year ago
@dunkafelic We dont need stimulus unless you want to extend the recession. The cost of regulation is very high, as in millions of jobs shipped overseas because of it. Some reg is good, most is just to maintain the bureaucracy and keep the welfare( guaranteed left wing votes) flowing.
pismo10 1 year ago
@pismo10 I understand there is a political aspect to regulation/de-regulation on both sides, and that it can have somewhat of a negative impact on efficiency, etc. however I feel there are more significant and potentially economically devastating costs associated with letting markets & industries go unregulated.
if one were to do an objective longitudinal study on the long-term macro-economic effects of regulation vs. de-regulation, I think regulation would prove to be less costly for society.
dunkafelic 1 year ago
@dunkafelic I respectfully could not disagree more. Over regulation is what is killing our economy and shipping jobs by the millions overseas. Your study would be run by very left wing biased academics and would show govt and regulation are the keys to the perfect utopian society when just the opposite is true, as 5000 years of history has shown.
pismo10 1 year ago
@pismo10 one has to take into account the human element. sure, in an ideal world markets and industries would be left unobstructed and could self-regulate. that would be best for everyone. however we don't live in an ideal world, so the human element has to be taken into consideration. the truth is that corporations if left unregulated WILL cut corners in order to lower their overhead and maximize profits. for example, many corporations WILL pollute the environment if it saves costs.
dunkafelic 1 year ago
Great stuff. Go Peter!!
Intervene 1 year ago
I think Keynesian economics wasn't invented by an elitist, Keyenes, and the purpose was to redistribute wealth from the middle class to the poor; creating a larger gap between the well-connected wealthy class and the poor.
The reason is to weaken the middle class so there are fewer who can influence the masses and expose corruption; The elite view the middle class as a threat
This is apparent from Krugman's suggestions: Who's affected most by subsidizing of hole-digging? -- The middle class!
FreedomForUsAll 1 year ago
ooh, wait, maybe Krugman has a point after all. By ensuring resources are consumed to produce nothing and by ensuring only tax dollars are used to employ everyone, let's print up anther 10 trillion in paper every year on top, we'll never have to worry about the economy ever again. Because after that, there won't be an economy.
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
holy crap. 2 + 2 = 4. How these people can't count to 4 but then DO think they can tell all of us, and Peter Schiff, what makes economic sense ... it BOGGLES THE MIND
ytgv3fc7 1 year ago
who the fuck is this krugman.
martinbelmont 1 year ago
KRUGMAN IS A PATHETIC KORNHOLER!
beabro 1 year ago 2
@Qwertypipe The broken window fallacy.
Unity0Is0Power 1 year ago
@eliden nicely said.
Unity0Is0Power 1 year ago
Please get rid of the pink... White Balance!!
Great content.
vipero00 1 year ago
why can't ppl see that the inefficiency Peter is talking about is a planned, deliberate paving of a road to socialism.... I mean socialism=inefficiency!
sushi123 1 year ago
People don't realize that it doesn't matter whether or not people have jobs per se, it matters whether or not their jobs are PRODUCTIVE!
If nothing is achieved when someone's workday is over, resources have been squandered, and the economy is in worse shape.
KagarBeardtooth 1 year ago 2
PETER IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!
IN PHYSICS I LEARNED THE FIRST FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF NATURE
FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN OPPOSITE AND EQUAL REACTION.
ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED.
PEOPLE CANNOT GAIN ANYTHING WITHOUT SACRIFICING SOMETHING.
YOU MUST PRESENT SOMETHING OF EQUAL VALUE TO GAIN SOMETHING.
THAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENT TRADE.
YOU CANNOT REPRESENT PAPER MONEY AS THE PEOPLE'S LABOR ANYMORE.
BELIEVING IN CREATING MONEY FOR STIMULATION WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE IS A LOOSING GAMBLE!
eliden 1 year ago 2