That why he's on tv and you in your basement with a hand cam splitting your time between YouTube videos and jerkin in your bath robe with a bottle of vaseline lotion and a cup of koolaid
if banks don't have money they are not banks, therefore they have to go out of the buisness. i ,on the other side, do have money to offer, so i will take that place. That insolvent bank is on my way, and if it go out of the business i will step up the plate. go suck out dicks, you are a loser who has no credibility in anything, but runing that hole
@bykashka75 LOL! Banks have more than a trillion dollars in reserves. But the fact that you think someone is just going to jump into their place with the kind of capital that is needed to fund an economy is just hilarious! The peter schiff cult is nothing but a bunch of ignorant kids with no understanding of how the real world works.
Banks get money from depositors. Letting bad banks fail give a incentive for the remaining banks to make sound loans. Letting auto companies fail clears the way for more efficient competitors to take market share.
Hey kid you need to take a economics class and listen to Peter.
I guess you failed to notice that GM and Chrysler are profitable now. You don't understand the stability that we bought ourselves by bailing them out. Anyway, moron kids who repeat peter schiff nonsense are a joke. Thanks for the laughs, little fella.
@dsglop Tell me in a couple of years about that stability we bought. All we did was buy enough time for the elites to bail out and stick the bill for their irresponsible behavior to the people who will be punished by slow economic growth, inflation and dictatorship. The other losers will be the foreign investors who bought our bonds.
As for GM and Chrysler your kidding right? Like you believed the commercial? It was a accounting gimmick. They are in the hole billions.
@Truthpolice9698 I believe their quarterly report which shows a profit. I guess you'll say they're lying or something but if you had a clue you'd realize how ridiculous a statement that would be but you are simply a ridiculous little petey parrot. I'm not going to waste any more time with you. Comments will not approved or even read. Go ahead and call me a coward but the fact of the matter is I have too many angry children repeating the nonsense schiff told them already.
Okay, it';s not even funny any more, it's just sad. Friedman talked about the NEED for an expanding money supply. He wants a freeze on expanding reserves and cash because deposits will expand themselves. Do you think he wants a permenant freeze? Of course not. He wants it to expand when deposits have exhausted themselves. He also talks about the gold standard sucking. You need to stop trying to make people's words fit your world view.
Schiff is not an economist, as such. He's a business and capital technologist. However, he bases much of his commentary on the fundamentals of neoclassical and Austrian economics. Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, M Friedman, D Friedman, S Friedman, Caplan, etc.
Again, you display a fundamental misunderstanding of Econ 101 - the causal principle in currency exchange, mutual gains from trade (Ricardo), etc - Schiff is not saying that we need an artificially strong dollar. We already have that.
HA! Silly. Milton Friedman COMPLETELY disagrees with schiff/Austrian silliness. Friedman realizes that we need an expanding money supply why schiff and the gang believes that we should allow the money supply to contract and depress the economy. Friedman won a Nobel Prize for explaining that the Fed caused the Great Dep by not expanding the money supply and saving the banks. For some guy who thinks so highly of himself, you sure are ignorant.
No, Milton Friedman abandoned steady growth monetarism and called for a freezing of the money supply.
Look it up.
Regardless, the Chicago neoclassicals (ed. M Friedman) were all libertarians and the fundamentals of their theory are for the most part the same as the Austrians.
Schiff doesn't believe that we should "depress" the economy, merely that restructuring is inevitable and shouldn't be artificially postoponed via policies that increase long term international/intranational liabilities.
Sorry, but I've read more Friedman than you and understand the difference between his and Austrian ideas. Yes, he is very libertarian, but HE DOES ACKNOWLEDGE AND WROTE EXTENSIVELY ON THE NEED FOR AN EXPANDING MONEY SUPPLY. You just saying otherwise doesn't make it true.
He did indeed write extensively on that, and then he recanted and stated that monetarism was "wrong" and called for the "freezing" of governmentally created money.
Look up his interview with Russ Roberts in the 'Concise Encyclopedia of Economics' or any of his later articles on the subject.
Your claiming to have read him "more than me" is put into question by the fact that you apparently don't know this.
Yes, there are differences between Chicago School and Austrians. Did I say there wasnt?
I just read that article and I want to thank you for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do not know how to read. After speaking highly of an expanding money supoply he says that he wants to freeze growth of currency and bank reserves which will allow the over all money supply to grow without government interference. He does not recant, he reiterates.
Hmm.. well now you understand that he wanted to freeze gov. sup. money supply (like Schiff) and allow the overall monetary system to function, as you put it, "without government interference" (like Schiff).
Wow, the tenacity of ignorance is astounding. He wants the money supply to expand, schiff wants gold to dictate the money supply and believes it needs to contract. Your attempt at changing the words of others is pure silliness.
Says the guy who has no idea what he's talking about. Seriously, you repeat pete's talking points about them printing money with no clue about the amount of analysis that goes into the decisions of how much new money is needed. How come the CPI has dropped over the last year? Maybe it's because pete has no idea what he's talking about.
This video is terrible, I am sorry. I don't really have 20 minutes to point out every fallacy.
Read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. You will learn that every auto job we save we will lose a job in a more productive sector of the economy.
First the securities are bought at less than face value so failures are absorbed by the higher than purchase returns which do come back.
The real potential for profit comes from the cash infusion given to the banks which is actually a purchase of stock by the fed.They pay dividends and can appreciate in value so that should be a good investment.
This guy is a liar. Check my recent posts on his fractional reserve banking video where I'm 99% sure I'm right, however I had to research FRB recently so I could be off a little.
Anything he says consider it crap and research it yourself. Personaly I agree with Peter Schiff on almost everything. Not Alex Jones, he's just trying to find any story that shocks people that may be true. Peter Schiff and Ron Paul's correct forcasts have caused me to research Austrian Economics on mises website.
So you are spamming my vids with your lies now?This perkest loser is so wrong.The conversation actually happend on my zeitgeist addendum bonus footage vid and I encourage everyone to go see how wrong he is.The references are quoted and easy to look up.
A poor argument with nothing but highly distorted examples and logical fallacies that do not support a point of view. Go to school take an English or Philosophy class and learn to construct an argument.
Save your breath people. He wont answer my question.. I asked him if he really thinks Fannie and Freddie would have taken on these high risk loans if they DIDNT have a central bank to bail them out? Yes or no.
This was all planned.. We now have socialized housing. Soon to have a socialized auto industry. The banks own this bitch.
You make a case that we should continue to allow the third world become our entrepreneurs so we can consume there goods. That may be great for the corporations and the bottom line but is terrible if you want to be an entrepreneur in the USA who has to compete against third world countries. Consuming does not produce wealth and being controlled by working for a fixed wage for a corporation limits your personal intrinsic value to society.
Wealth is produced when you create a tangible good or service look at china in the last 15 years. Or America in the 1940s and 50s
Did you not know that all OPEC oil is traded in US dollars Our Fed controls not only the strength of our dollar but Crude as well since all is traded on the world market in our currency. Man wake up!
1) Your first point is incorrect -- allowing the free market to work without government intervention is hardly doing anything It is a great Idea Name one program the government is successfully running or just one in the Black.
2) Money to lend out? -- where will you create this money? A printing Press? The Federal Reserve? If printing more money was a solution Zimbabwe would not have a Problem
3) Investment capital comes from the private sector all the time Ever work with or for a venture capital company?
4) The business of a bank is not to lend out money it is to make a profit on profitable investments not give away free money.
5) the auto industry needs to fail -- nobody should be forced to bail them out its unconstitutional to mandate we pay for others failure Failure is natural --- Rewarding bad business like you advocate is foolish I suppose you want banks to lend them money so they can take a loss too
6) Why is the banking industry struggling as you pointed out? Could it be because of they were making bad loans with the government saying telling them to make it as affordable as possible?
I agree. The big 3 are going to keep doing what isn't working. If they go the demand for vehicles isn't going to go away. Either someone will buy what's left or the foreign plants will gear up to meet demand. The US will still buy x vehicles per year. It shouldn't be cheap gas guzelling cars.
Same for the banks. If the banks keep giving loans that people can't afford, nobody wins. If the banks were forced to close somebody will be there to scoop up the customers. That already happened.
"where is this new auto industry gonna come from?"
Perhaps you've heard of Toyota or perhaps nissan etc? The American companies failed because they make shit cars & went about business terribly, you can't bail people out for incompitence. There'd be a fuckload of other companies willing to buy up all the factpries for cheap & have the employees keep their jobs.
The rest of this piece of shit vid just shows how you are in waaay over your head on this issue.
Gee....who should I believe.....Peter Schiff, who was right about all of his predictions or some fucking moron who, for all I know, doesn't even have a college degree or a job. I'll take my chances on Peter Schiff.
there are plenty of other banks that are making money not losing it that are not on wallstreet. banks that know how to responsibly lend money you idiot.
Yes, that pretty much agrees with what Peter Schiff and Ron Paul claim to be the case, but I was hoping for something more ... specific from the author seeing as eager he is to defend his stance. Which source is that 90% from?
Alright then, care to explain how much out of that $700bln bailout bill is accounted for by the treasury and how much by lowering the law-mandated liquid bank reserves?
$700bln is roughly 5% of US nominal GDP and 20% of govt receipts, and the govt has been in the red since Q3 2001, so the treasury having any spare (compared to last year) AT ALL is wishful thinking imo...
Your sentiments and arguments are weak. You're out to say that Schiff doesn't understand basic economic principles, but you fail to realize that the industries haven't been running on "basic principles" for some time now. Basic economics would allow the companies to go into chapter 11, restructure, and come out stronger than the position they are in now. Your failure to understand that basic piece of information shows that you know quite a lot less than most Economic 101 students.
there will not be a new car company out of the blue, but it gives a chance to other car companies to get a good deal at the bankruptcy sale and buy the good parts of these companies.These companies will still exist they do not completely disapear.
Banks aren't willing to lend money to anybody willing to buy these companies but nobody is interested in buying them anyway due to the overall economic situation.
Other than deadwood all your comments are boring and aren't worth a reply.
Especially you people who are trying to quote BBC's power of nightmares as saying al qaeda was a name made up by the States because that same documentary talks about al qaeda commiting 911 so get a clue.
And I made a vid called false flag terror storm that goes over all that tonkin/northwoods nonsense.Comment there if you are one of those idiots.
This is rich. A punk Canadian who thinks he's a know it all. FYI, the Gulf of Tonkin and Northwoods are FACT, as declassified US government documents prove.
You can go on denying reality, but it makes you look like an ignorant twat. Guess that's what you are.
If you actually knew as much as you think you do, you might have something.
I am not denying it but you don't know all the facts.You may comment on this further on my false flag terror storm vid but if you comment about this any more on this vid I will delete your comments.
Don't you find it funny how all they seem to want to do is go "haha fukin canadian!" and just repeat their one liners about conspiracies they don'y understand with ni evidence to back it up? You do a good job of making them look like the lying sacks of crap they are.
Yeah I get a kick out of their comments which are nothing but uninformed insults.Like I'm supposed to care that a bunch of morons think I am the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.
I stopped listening after 2 minutes, but you have no idea what you are talking about.
Peter is saying that Detroit needs to enter Chapter 11 so they can actually have an somewhat orderly contract renegotiation with the unions and get rid of their horrible management.
Get your facts straight. When a company enters chapter 11 they obtain DIP financing and are able to carry out business while reorganizing it.
The only way companies get access to more capital under chapter 11 is from not paying their debts which means all the peripheral industries who are already suffering will suffer more and many may shut down.I agree that the unions are a problem but they can let them strike and hire replacement employees in this labour market.And as I mentioned in this vid corporations can easily replace their management chapter 11 or not.
The banking industry is not lending because real estate is still dropping and they are still suffering losses. Any money received from bailouts simply replenishes their reserves.
Capital investments should be financed through increased savings, not through costly govt issued debt.
Bailing out failing corporations is a very compassionate policy but unfortunately it is financially disastrous as it eliminates the risk of financial loss that guides prudent financial decision making.
"There are 3,000 less people in New York today because of my imagination. Thousands have been killed from Afghanistan to Kenya to Somalia because of a myth."
Yes that's correct.. If you don't understand how that could be(as most people don't)
ok...i can't watch the whole thing. hats off to you, though, dsglop. you are one uninformed idiot. keep parroting keynesian talking points and you will continue to sound like the moron you are. i'll be back again for laughs.
I can be arrogant. There's no question about that. But then it's not hard when educating idiots. And you're right, al-Qaeda doesn't exist. The Kurdistan Worker's Party, the Palestinian Liberation Front, Hamas, Hezbollah, yeah those are all fake too. There are 3,000 less people in New York today because of my imagination. Thousands have been killed from Afghanistan to Kenya to Somalia because of a myth. You're a fucking genius. And FDR knew about Pearl Harbor, WWI was a scam and the Earth is flat
for your information al-Qaeda is a list of mujahadeen fighters trained by the CIA. FDR was warned by Australia and other countries that the Japanese were going to attack pearl harbour 8 days before it happened dipshit. with regards WW1 read up on the Lusitania and German ad's in the new york times. while your at it look up 'the gulf of tonkin incident' and the 'northwoods document' 13 march 1962 from the joint chiefs of staff to the secretary of defence. wake up idiot you need the education!
Mujahideen is a generic word used by many groups. The group we supported by that name in Afghanistan was not al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was started by a Saudi, Osama Bin Laden. The Mujahideen we aided warped basically into the Northern Alliance which helped us overthrow the Taliban. Al-Qaeda on the other hand worked with the Taliban to crush opposition and militant Mujahideen fighters.
So there goes that theory. You're apparently ignorant of the fact that Afghanistan's been in a state of civil war since friggin 1978. The idea that it's all or nothing regarding aiding anti-Soviets in absurd and ignores the history of Afghanistan and its warring factions. But then you are an idiot.
FDR was not warned that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor. That's a lie and a bad one at that. Nobody would believe Pearl Harbor would be attacked by anyone. It was thought impenetrable. Try actually looking that the IJN documents yourself regarding intelligence and data logs. In fact, Australia was a part of the British Empire at the time, and we shared intelligence with the British. FDR wanted to stop Hitler but in no way wanted another war with Japan.
Both FDR and Churchill feared a two ocean war and that's a fact. Churchill got war when Japan attacked Malaya and FDR Hawaii. They were not known in advance. That's nonsense. Think, why would FDR have allowed Japan to attack Pearl Harbor only to lose the Pacific Fleet? You people are idiots.
Why should I read up on the Lusitania? I'm the one that knows that the material on board the ship wasn't even known about by Germany and that they explicitly fired on the civilian cruise ship because of its national origin. They had no knowledge of weapons or goods being smuggled. It was nothing but a German massacre of civilians. Maybe you should learn about unrestricted submarine warfare.
The Gulf of Tonkin wasn't a false flag operation like you idiots think. It was an error. They thought they were attacked before it as well, and besides that, we were already at war in Vietnam thanks to Kennedy.
And Northwoods never even happened. It was proposed by one jackass and swiftly rejected. That's like saying a politician violated a proposed amendment that hasn't even been ratified or passed. The government never tried to implement or carry out the proposed operation.
And even then you don't even see why it was proposed. A little island off the coast of Florida call Cuba with a Communist dictatorship that we would fail to overthrow twice. And then there's the fact that many of the proposals for "false flag" violence would be simulated and not actually carried out against civilians. But you're a genius right? Try reading the document. You're an idiot. You need the education, you loser.
Give a loser a warped, historical revisionist conspiracy theory and he'll shit himself. But it's always nice to assume the worst about America and stab her in the back while at the same time claiming to be defending justice and truth. Fucking loser.
Do you even know how the market works? If you bail out companies where's the incentive to make money? If you let them go bankrupt there's still a demand for banking. Either clients go to existing banks or some entrepreneur buys the bankrupt bank's assets for cheap and opens his/her bank. All you are doing, by bailing out these companies is keeping the same morons that screws up to screw up again. And they will because since they have a safety net they will take more risks.
I really have to wonder what's up with this rash of Canadians (the poster of this video and several of the commenter posters) carrying on that they are experts on the US economy.
What kind of mindless Alice in wonderland communist propaganda is this?
There are capital shortages because CAPITAL HAS BEEN SQUANDERED. This can only be remedied by under consumption and savings. The current regime which you seem to be happy with will hamper this recovery. Patience will be lost and there will be an exodus out of the U.S. for greener pastures.
Let me guess, you think Jim Roger sucks too. Last time I checked...bad news always sucked! Let me guess you think Max Kaiser sucks too. Does it mean anything to you that these people have been right?
"Some call it a ponzi scheme" Yes all the fancy derivative schemes are like bulking up the fuel with air(froth). It now looks like you have a lot of fuel but it's just an illusion. It doesn't go any further.
Come on guys, give the man a break; Have you ever wondered how the US economy have been working so far?" Yes..Living way beyond it's means. Borrowing more(other than for investment in wealth generating production)will only make things worse.
Come on guys, give the man a break; Have you ever wondered how the US economy have been working so far? If people were all smart the US economy would have collapsed long time ego. After all, if you couldn't find a stupid person (speculator) that would buy your house/stock/etc more that what it was actually worth... do you think the economy could have come so far?
You can have the best plane in the World but if you have a bad pilot your in trouble.
Likewise with the best pilot in the World and a bad plane (one with no liquid fuel like the US today)your also in trouble.
Keynesian approaches have often worked in the past leading to the belief there was a new paradigm. But they only worked because the fundamentals could support them.
This is what the Keynesians don't understand and why were in trouble.
dsglop OBVIOUSLY has no idea what it means to live in a free market.
it's not the job of taxpayers to bailout failing companies. unemployment is expected to increase in 2009 which means people will not be able to afford cars, so why the fuck would you bailout a company that will just fail again? all you are doing is prolonging the problem! right now housing prices in the US are outrageous and the govt is trying to keep them high. if we cant afford them, prices must go down.
About your first point. Banks that have no money to lend out should go bankrupt. The banks that still have money would either get those banks customers and/or buy over the bankrupt banks.
You call this lame? You are thinking of a Strong Dollar under this current monetary Policy, that is not a Free Market. A real Free Market allows Small Business to be able to compete with Big; so if one goes down another replaces. High Productivity, More Variety, Cost Low.
This was directly to his Strong Dollar accusation of buying up nothing but cheap goods...
Jesus Christ, you people are pathetic losers. Stop spamming the guy's video. Try actually challenging what he says rather than posting links to your gay little playlists. Fight your own battles instead of linking to conpiracy nuts. And your sarcastic comments and stand alone comments asking about his education are lame. He's probably read more than all of you losers combined. Friggin Alex Jones zombies.
Well.. First off, none of this is spam. I challenge his fucking ass, even provided the educated with the links. But all I get mouth and dodge. Why not check out the links before you leave a comment, but its already too late. You are a fucking douche bag...
Why should I check out your links? Why don't you make a real point instead of telling others to go on internet scavenger hunts? And just so you know, I'm a free market guy. I don't even agree with the guy. But I sure as hell don't side with the disgusting nutjobs that are attacking him. There's a difference between voicing disagreements and being a fucking asshole like you, douchebag. Go take a long walk off a short cliff.
I made the "real point" and ADDED the links afterwards...You didn't read my comments did you? Its called material btw. When you refuse to even look at it that is called dodging.
"And just so you know, I'm a free market guy. I don't even agree with the guy. But I sure as hell don't side with the disgusting nutjobs that are attacking him."
So you 5 star? Please, you are for a Free Market but criticize us who are for the same thing. We attacked his material not solely him..
"Do you understand what a Free Market is? I guess not..." No, you started off by insulting his intelligence. You then said your friend needed to be educated for agreeing with him. You then accused him of wanting to shut off comments. You then made a lame attempt to define a free market with the sarcastic assumption he didn't know about it, despite the fact that he never even asked you. THEN you posted a link as a reply to your own comment. Good job.
Bullshit, you made no point. Just insulting the intelligence of others and making pointless statements stating the obvious adding a link afterwards. So fuck you, you troll. You're a liar and an idiot. And most of the other posts were no different than your own. I'm a free market man that can befriend a guy I don't agree with and defend him from unwarranted attacks.
You really are a dumb ass. Read the fucking comments, if you don't understand them click the fucking links. And if you don't, stfu and gtfo. Because you are not being productive...
I'll just send you a copy message from my friend... Don't look it up, than you have no merit to continue to attack me.. I sent it to the author btw...
I'm not looking at your links. I don't need convincing about anything. I understand economics better than you and I've studied it long enough to understand that conservatism and free market principles are far superior to anything else in terms of profit and liberty. But my beliefs on the economy had nothing to do with my opposition to you. You can't even read, you moron. I don't agree with the guy on monetary policy. I support him against Paul, Jones, and so on and I defend him from you idiots.
Why? Paul, Jones and so on are for Free Market Principles and Liberty. Why is there even a dispute? Why are you against People who are in agreement...
I don't oppose their free market beliefs. I oppose their other beliefs. The nutjob ones. You can't be an Alex Jones fan without knowing what a disgusting pile of trash he is. He's a conspiracy theory and a lying jackass. I'm not in agreement with them on everything. No way in hell, I'm a conservative constitutionalist, not a Libertarian.
He said they were travelling on the same path of wanting less government, but his statement about them being the same thing was about misnomers and how the meanings of words change over time. He also says conservatism is liberalism from the Enlightenment. Classical liberal, I'm sure you've heard of it.
The role of the government is that which is layed out in the social contract that is the Constitution. The role can best be sumarized through the Preamble: Form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
Basically, defending the rights of the people and upholding civic virtue and civil liberties.
You're wrong. It's not life, liberty, and property. It's life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. Saying you have the right to property is no different than saying you have the right to a home, or money. You don't. You have the right to the pursuit of property. You have to work for it; government doesn't or rather shouldn't just give it to you.
And yes, negative liberties are the only true ones. Positive liberties are false rights that only statists believe in.
You posted that awkwardly. I thought you were making two points about rights, first saying which rights there were and what government's role regarding those rights was. Fine then.
I know far more about government than a YouTube video could hope to teach me. I already know about republicanism and direct democracy. I oppose direct democracy from the Greek perspective. That's what the Founders called mobocracy. Mob rule is a danger to liberty, and so we became a republic. Republic translates into "public" which goes back to defending the people through laws. The law comes first.
He compared the Free Market for what it is right now. That is false, I clarified later... What you call lame is what makes you no different then this idiot in the video, and for you not to check out the links makes you ignorant. You don't know the platform...
You can't compare something for something. That makes no sense at all. And you didn't clarify anything. You posted a link after a generic statement about how the free market works, a bad definition at that, not a clarification. You posted an insult presupposing he didn't know what free markets were, then later on decided to make another post with a bad generic explanation of a free market that he didn't even ask for. And don't need your links. And what platform, the platform of the Idiot Party?
And btw he wasn't exactly a modest citizen in this video, he was a fucking idiot especially at the end. He was being no different to Alex Jones, Peter, and Ron Paul than you take it that we are to him. And seriously, someone had to correct his ass. What did you come to find out? Multiple answers nailing each bit of his flaw in the logic. What are we suppose to do? Be Nice? He blocked comments in the last video bashing Peter. This video is nothing but a bash job, and you got problem with us?
It's his video. If you come in to my house I can talk how I want, and you're perfectly welcome to get the hell out if you don't like it. But maybe I'm biased because I actually listened to what he said when he's contantly taken apart RuPaul and Jones. I find it entertaining because of my dislike for those sick SOB's. I'll side with a non-conservative Canadian before I side with an anti-American American. The man actually refuted the losers while you don't. And you didn't correct him on anything.
I am not Anti American, I uphold the Constitution. What makes me sick is people in your department "tear apart" people like Ron Paul, but why? He is upholding the Constitution. Is it his Foreign Policy? That is very America. Both parties, Federalist and Democratic-Republicans were for a Non-Intervention Foreign Policy... We have a form of Isolationism today, with all these embargoes going on.
Is it that you don't like his Domestic Stance? Why? Public Education isn't the role of Government...
You uphold the Constitution? Are you a Congressman now? You don't uphold shit. And if you're the kind of nut in agreement with Jones that thinks the wars are illegal and the result of an inside job on 9/11, then you're an anti-american.
I tear apart Ron Paul because he's a hack. He's not a conservative or constitutionalist, but a Libertarian. There's a difference. He doesn't uphold the Constitution when he outright lies about the War Powers Clause in Article One. He's a historical revisionist
That's a lame thing to say. Like sitting on your ass at the computer is upholding the Constitution. A soldier upholds the Constitution. A cop upholds it. A politicians could uphold it. You? Unless you're actually unvolved, then no. Casting your vote is the most you probably do to uphold the Constitution.
And no, the two parties didn't have concrete foreign polcies. The two formed on disagreements on the size of the federal government and foreign policy was never truly an issue until the War of 1812. And let's remember something. Adams fought the Quasi-War with france, Jefferson the First Barbary War against the Barbary States, Madison the War of 1812 against the British and Second Barbary War against the Barbary States again. Let's not forget the Indian Wars.
Monroe came up with the Monroe Doctrine, not very non-interventionist considering America herself didn't need to be attacked to provoke war. Washington aided the French to fight a Haitian slave revolt. Many took sides during the war between the British and French. Don't be an idiot. There weren't any Operation Urgent Fury's back then, but there were conflicts.
I agreed on much of Paul's domestic policy, but not all. He's a nut that wanted to destroy the CIA and FBI.
And I don't support modern public schools, but it's a lie to say the Founders didn't support universal education. Many of them did. I don't, but the Fathers of conservatism thought it was needed to keep the public informed. They didn't forsee the problems with it today, but back then it was a given.
Go fuck yourself. Nobody asked you. Funny how I'm the one that needs to pull his head out of his ass when I'm the one that's right and he's the one that started this in the first place.
I'm saying that having troops in Saudi Arabia, befriending Israel, and Operation Ajax don't cause the Twin Towers to fall down. The blowback theory is a blame America theory. It fails to account for many things, like why Islamists have been attacking those that are non-imperialist, non-Western, anti-American, not American or British, isolationist nations, and so on. The true motives of terrorists are simple to understand. They want to establish an empire. A global caliphate.
But if that was the case, you are talking about multiple warlords allying up together... And last I checked, they don't like each just as much. Lets say Israel never existed and the Jews were even somewhere else. The Arabs would be killing one another like they are today. Look at Iraq and Iran, they hated it each other and at one time it was Persia... It just seems very vague, who? Where at? Do they want freedom to be left alone.
That's not the entire truth. Look at Hitler and Stalin. They were "allies" for some time before turning on eachother. Hitler and Mussolini didn't get along and Mussolini couldn't stand Hitler. Hitler couldn't get Franco to cooperate with him. Now these were all Fascists that found common ground in an anti-Communist pact yet also had several times gotten close to war. Hitler was afraid Italy would invade him because of Hitler's Austrian Nazi allies.
We very rarely have propped up dictators. The few dictators we've supported came to power without our intervention. Augusto Pinochet for example came to power through a military junta and was appointed by the military junta to lead. Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Stalin, and so on. Sometimes in order to defend freedom we've had to aid those we opposed. Stalin against Hitler, Saddam against the Ayatollah, Diem against Ho Chi Minh, Mao against Stalin.
It's not enjoyable, nor worth celebrating. But in order to preserve the peace we've sometimes had to come to the aid of those that we disagreed with. If we didn't aid Stalin it would have helped our other enemy. If if didn't help Saddam is would have strengthened Iran. But those aren't the only battles. More often then not we don't have to choose between two evils, but just good and evil. We fought Stalin in the Cold War and Saddam from the Gulf War onward. It's complicated, but inevitable.
@dsglop i find it hilarious that you didn't dispute that you are jerkin in your basement sad really
Loudensll 7 months ago
@Loudensll I find it hilarious that you said it in the first place. You kids are nothing but a joke.
dsglop 7 months ago
That why he's on tv and you in your basement with a hand cam splitting your time between YouTube videos and jerkin in your bath robe with a bottle of vaseline lotion and a cup of koolaid
Loudensll 7 months ago
@Loudensll LOL! you kids and your devotion to your stupid cult leader is hilarious!
dsglop 7 months ago
if banks don't have money they are not banks, therefore they have to go out of the buisness. i ,on the other side, do have money to offer, so i will take that place. That insolvent bank is on my way, and if it go out of the business i will step up the plate. go suck out dicks, you are a loser who has no credibility in anything, but runing that hole
bykashka75 1 year ago
@bykashka75 LOL! Banks have more than a trillion dollars in reserves. But the fact that you think someone is just going to jump into their place with the kind of capital that is needed to fund an economy is just hilarious! The peter schiff cult is nothing but a bunch of ignorant kids with no understanding of how the real world works.
dsglop 1 year ago
Banks get money from depositors. Letting bad banks fail give a incentive for the remaining banks to make sound loans. Letting auto companies fail clears the way for more efficient competitors to take market share.
Hey kid you need to take a economics class and listen to Peter.
Truthpolice9698 1 year ago
@Truthpolice9698 HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
I guess you failed to notice that GM and Chrysler are profitable now. You don't understand the stability that we bought ourselves by bailing them out. Anyway, moron kids who repeat peter schiff nonsense are a joke. Thanks for the laughs, little fella.
dsglop 1 year ago
@dsglop Tell me in a couple of years about that stability we bought. All we did was buy enough time for the elites to bail out and stick the bill for their irresponsible behavior to the people who will be punished by slow economic growth, inflation and dictatorship. The other losers will be the foreign investors who bought our bonds.
As for GM and Chrysler your kidding right? Like you believed the commercial? It was a accounting gimmick. They are in the hole billions.
Truthpolice9698 1 year ago
@Truthpolice9698 I believe their quarterly report which shows a profit. I guess you'll say they're lying or something but if you had a clue you'd realize how ridiculous a statement that would be but you are simply a ridiculous little petey parrot. I'm not going to waste any more time with you. Comments will not approved or even read. Go ahead and call me a coward but the fact of the matter is I have too many angry children repeating the nonsense schiff told them already.
dsglop 1 year ago
You are wrong about Faber. Faber isn't that different from Schiff. Faber has appeared on Alex Jones many times.
scitops 2 years ago
Okay, it';s not even funny any more, it's just sad. Friedman talked about the NEED for an expanding money supply. He wants a freeze on expanding reserves and cash because deposits will expand themselves. Do you think he wants a permenant freeze? Of course not. He wants it to expand when deposits have exhausted themselves. He also talks about the gold standard sucking. You need to stop trying to make people's words fit your world view.
dsglop 2 years ago
Schiff is not an economist, as such. He's a business and capital technologist. However, he bases much of his commentary on the fundamentals of neoclassical and Austrian economics. Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, M Friedman, D Friedman, S Friedman, Caplan, etc.
Again, you display a fundamental misunderstanding of Econ 101 - the causal principle in currency exchange, mutual gains from trade (Ricardo), etc - Schiff is not saying that we need an artificially strong dollar. We already have that.
Duh.
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
HA! Silly. Milton Friedman COMPLETELY disagrees with schiff/Austrian silliness. Friedman realizes that we need an expanding money supply why schiff and the gang believes that we should allow the money supply to contract and depress the economy. Friedman won a Nobel Prize for explaining that the Fed caused the Great Dep by not expanding the money supply and saving the banks. For some guy who thinks so highly of himself, you sure are ignorant.
dsglop 2 years ago
No, Milton Friedman abandoned steady growth monetarism and called for a freezing of the money supply.
Look it up.
Regardless, the Chicago neoclassicals (ed. M Friedman) were all libertarians and the fundamentals of their theory are for the most part the same as the Austrians.
Schiff doesn't believe that we should "depress" the economy, merely that restructuring is inevitable and shouldn't be artificially postoponed via policies that increase long term international/intranational liabilities.
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
Sorry, but I've read more Friedman than you and understand the difference between his and Austrian ideas. Yes, he is very libertarian, but HE DOES ACKNOWLEDGE AND WROTE EXTENSIVELY ON THE NEED FOR AN EXPANDING MONEY SUPPLY. You just saying otherwise doesn't make it true.
dsglop 2 years ago
He did indeed write extensively on that, and then he recanted and stated that monetarism was "wrong" and called for the "freezing" of governmentally created money.
Look up his interview with Russ Roberts in the 'Concise Encyclopedia of Economics' or any of his later articles on the subject.
Your claiming to have read him "more than me" is put into question by the fact that you apparently don't know this.
Yes, there are differences between Chicago School and Austrians. Did I say there wasnt?
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
I just read that article and I want to thank you for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do not know how to read. After speaking highly of an expanding money supoply he says that he wants to freeze growth of currency and bank reserves which will allow the over all money supply to grow without government interference. He does not recant, he reiterates.
dsglop 2 years ago
Hmm.. well now you understand that he wanted to freeze gov. sup. money supply (like Schiff) and allow the overall monetary system to function, as you put it, "without government interference" (like Schiff).
Now look up "monetarism" in a dictionary.
For the epiphany, you're welcome.
jonnniefivemiles 2 years ago
Wow, the tenacity of ignorance is astounding. He wants the money supply to expand, schiff wants gold to dictate the money supply and believes it needs to contract. Your attempt at changing the words of others is pure silliness.
dsglop 2 years ago
I couldn't get past the first sentance.
Banks DON*T need investment capital, the money is created out of belly-button lint. It is a parasitic system of smoke and mirrors.
flyhead2 2 years ago
Says the guy who has no idea what he is talking about.
dsglop 2 years ago
You're funny.
flyhead2 2 years ago
Says the guy who has no idea what he's talking about. Seriously, you repeat pete's talking points about them printing money with no clue about the amount of analysis that goes into the decisions of how much new money is needed. How come the CPI has dropped over the last year? Maybe it's because pete has no idea what he's talking about.
dsglop 2 years ago
It's ironic when the guy who has no idea what he's talking about tells others they don't know what they're talking about...
ZackServo2point0 2 years ago
I never get sick of reading the comments of arrogant morons. It's especially funny when they don't even try to offer any analysis.
dsglop 2 years ago
I will no longer be accepting comments on this vid.If you must call me an idiot or something please do so on the vid response.
If you are coherent and not interested in some silly name calling game please let me now if you want to discuss this reasonably in a pm.
dsglop 3 years ago
This video is terrible, I am sorry. I don't really have 20 minutes to point out every fallacy.
Read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. You will learn that every auto job we save we will lose a job in a more productive sector of the economy.
rixross 3 years ago
Simply saying read this is not even close to being an argument so why don't you go somewhere else and try your pathetic tactics.
dsglop 3 years ago
If the Fed is going to make a profit from buying these securities, then why won't private investors buy them?
rixross 3 years ago
This is a good question so I will answer.
First the securities are bought at less than face value so failures are absorbed by the higher than purchase returns which do come back.
The real potential for profit comes from the cash infusion given to the banks which is actually a purchase of stock by the fed.They pay dividends and can appreciate in value so that should be a good investment.
dsglop 3 years ago
People, this vid and some of the posters are another Youtube dis-info-op. Stop coming to it, and stop posting on it. It's bullshit.
freedomman121 3 years ago
You're an idiot. If you don't have any money to lend out than banking is the wrong damn business for you to be in. What tool you are.
riddler03 3 years ago
This guy is a liar. Check my recent posts on his fractional reserve banking video where I'm 99% sure I'm right, however I had to research FRB recently so I could be off a little.
Anything he says consider it crap and research it yourself. Personaly I agree with Peter Schiff on almost everything. Not Alex Jones, he's just trying to find any story that shocks people that may be true. Peter Schiff and Ron Paul's correct forcasts have caused me to research Austrian Economics on mises website.
Perkest 3 years ago
So you are spamming my vids with your lies now?This perkest loser is so wrong.The conversation actually happend on my zeitgeist addendum bonus footage vid and I encourage everyone to go see how wrong he is.The references are quoted and easy to look up.
dsglop 3 years ago
lemme guess; this guy voted for Obama and his econ 101 prof idolizes John Maynard Keynes. 6 minutes and 50 seconds of my life I want back!
donmciii 3 years ago
A poor argument with nothing but highly distorted examples and logical fallacies that do not support a point of view. Go to school take an English or Philosophy class and learn to construct an argument.
bewi0201 3 years ago
This vid is full of words such as "maybe", "kinda" or "probably".
spathieluder 3 years ago
The Federal Reserve's low interest rates have the following consequences:
-Increase in the money supply which causes inflation.
-Reduced savings since inflation erodes the purchasing power of savings.
-Increased investment in the stock market in an attempt to beat inflation.
-Increase in the use of debt and debt financed purchases(i.e. real estate).
Is it any surprise that the US has a savings problem, debt problem, and recently experienced the popping of a real-estate and stock market bubble?
madcubano1 3 years ago
Save your breath people. He wont answer my question.. I asked him if he really thinks Fannie and Freddie would have taken on these high risk loans if they DIDNT have a central bank to bail them out? Yes or no.
This was all planned.. We now have socialized housing. Soon to have a socialized auto industry. The banks own this bitch.
vdubs4life1964 3 years ago
Hey,
Just give me 70% of my taxes back and I won't complain how the government blows the rest...
swizzlecheeks 3 years ago
I saw a video where Peter Schiff punched an old lady in the mouth. Then he kicked her dog which she was taking for a walk.
Jacobrester 3 years ago
The lady was using the dog to assault kids. Good job Peter for saving them.
a012345 3 years ago
I thought you were joking but this pete fan confirms it.Where can I find this vid?I have to see it.
dsglop 3 years ago
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
~Thomas Jefferson
Patriot4Liberty1776 3 years ago
You make a case that we should continue to allow the third world become our entrepreneurs so we can consume there goods. That may be great for the corporations and the bottom line but is terrible if you want to be an entrepreneur in the USA who has to compete against third world countries. Consuming does not produce wealth and being controlled by working for a fixed wage for a corporation limits your personal intrinsic value to society.
Patriot4Liberty1776 3 years ago
Wealth is produced when you create a tangible good or service look at china in the last 15 years. Or America in the 1940s and 50s
Did you not know that all OPEC oil is traded in US dollars Our Fed controls not only the strength of our dollar but Crude as well since all is traded on the world market in our currency. Man wake up!
Patriot4Liberty1776 3 years ago
1) Your first point is incorrect -- allowing the free market to work without government intervention is hardly doing anything It is a great Idea Name one program the government is successfully running or just one in the Black.
Patriot4Liberty1776 3 years ago
2) Money to lend out? -- where will you create this money? A printing Press? The Federal Reserve? If printing more money was a solution Zimbabwe would not have a Problem
3) Investment capital comes from the private sector all the time Ever work with or for a venture capital company?
4) The business of a bank is not to lend out money it is to make a profit on profitable investments not give away free money.
Patriot4Liberty1776 3 years ago
5) the auto industry needs to fail -- nobody should be forced to bail them out its unconstitutional to mandate we pay for others failure Failure is natural --- Rewarding bad business like you advocate is foolish I suppose you want banks to lend them money so they can take a loss too
6) Why is the banking industry struggling as you pointed out? Could it be because of they were making bad loans with the government saying telling them to make it as affordable as possible?
Patriot4Liberty1776 3 years ago
This guy really doesnt have a clue what he is talking about!...Simple minds at work
farang369 3 years ago
Hey dicknose, you wont need billions to "start" a new car company. All the infrastructure is there. Just start it up again.
wheelnchef 3 years ago
I agree. The big 3 are going to keep doing what isn't working. If they go the demand for vehicles isn't going to go away. Either someone will buy what's left or the foreign plants will gear up to meet demand. The US will still buy x vehicles per year. It shouldn't be cheap gas guzelling cars.
Same for the banks. If the banks keep giving loans that people can't afford, nobody wins. If the banks were forced to close somebody will be there to scoop up the customers. That already happened.
Sunnray 3 years ago
if you take away the ability of companies to fail, you take away the ability to succeed.
wheelnchef 3 years ago
I agree with some of the things you say and disagree with others.
Some banks need to fail. The industry was bloated and did dumb things.
The auto industry can fail. There is so much demand that it is worthy for investors to come in and pick up the pieces.
The US dollar will never fall very low.Ever.
You are right about the manufacturing jobs thing. They just don't materialize. Especially since the dollar won't drop.
Yes, speculators were the problem. Yes, Marc Faber is great.
updownleftrightinout 3 years ago
"where is this new auto industry gonna come from?"
Perhaps you've heard of Toyota or perhaps nissan etc? The American companies failed because they make shit cars & went about business terribly, you can't bail people out for incompitence. There'd be a fuckload of other companies willing to buy up all the factpries for cheap & have the employees keep their jobs.
The rest of this piece of shit vid just shows how you are in waaay over your head on this issue.
meansideys 3 years ago
Gee....who should I believe.....Peter Schiff, who was right about all of his predictions or some fucking moron who, for all I know, doesn't even have a college degree or a job. I'll take my chances on Peter Schiff.
kitadabeagle 3 years ago
there are plenty of other banks that are making money not losing it that are not on wallstreet. banks that know how to responsibly lend money you idiot.
zappos49 3 years ago
Ron Paul discussing the invasion of Gaza and America's economy.
/watch?v=08gTWqWrI4M
freedomman121 3 years ago
Maybe this can help you understand it better?
watch?v=mgPJQb71W-o
BIackOp 3 years ago
Yes, that pretty much agrees with what Peter Schiff and Ron Paul claim to be the case, but I was hoping for something more ... specific from the author seeing as eager he is to defend his stance. Which source is that 90% from?
lymaeQ 3 years ago
You will have to ask the guy "OurBraveNewWorld" who uploaded the video, he has all the information and he is very helpful.
BIackOp 3 years ago
I show it in the vid.
dsglop 3 years ago
"90% of it is actually existing money"
Alright then, care to explain how much out of that $700bln bailout bill is accounted for by the treasury and how much by lowering the law-mandated liquid bank reserves?
$700bln is roughly 5% of US nominal GDP and 20% of govt receipts, and the govt has been in the red since Q3 2001, so the treasury having any spare (compared to last year) AT ALL is wishful thinking imo...
lymaeQ 3 years ago
DS
Your sentiments and arguments are weak. You're out to say that Schiff doesn't understand basic economic principles, but you fail to realize that the industries haven't been running on "basic principles" for some time now. Basic economics would allow the companies to go into chapter 11, restructure, and come out stronger than the position they are in now. Your failure to understand that basic piece of information shows that you know quite a lot less than most Economic 101 students.
BSRGodfather 3 years ago
And you are not taking into consideration that there is no money to restructure with.
dsglop 3 years ago
Another great vid! Keep 'em coming and *****5 STARS*****
islandwide3338 3 years ago
there will not be a new car company out of the blue, but it gives a chance to other car companies to get a good deal at the bankruptcy sale and buy the good parts of these companies.These companies will still exist they do not completely disapear.
marcosxag 3 years ago
Banks aren't willing to lend money to anybody willing to buy these companies but nobody is interested in buying them anyway due to the overall economic situation.
dsglop 3 years ago
FUCK YOU!....you don't even have a clue!
usergently 3 years ago
Other than deadwood all your comments are boring and aren't worth a reply.
Especially you people who are trying to quote BBC's power of nightmares as saying al qaeda was a name made up by the States because that same documentary talks about al qaeda commiting 911 so get a clue.
And I made a vid called false flag terror storm that goes over all that tonkin/northwoods nonsense.Comment there if you are one of those idiots.
dsglop 3 years ago
This is rich. A punk Canadian who thinks he's a know it all. FYI, the Gulf of Tonkin and Northwoods are FACT, as declassified US government documents prove.
You can go on denying reality, but it makes you look like an ignorant twat. Guess that's what you are.
If you actually knew as much as you think you do, you might have something.
freedomman121 3 years ago
I am not denying it but you don't know all the facts.You may comment on this further on my false flag terror storm vid but if you comment about this any more on this vid I will delete your comments.
dsglop 3 years ago
Don't you find it funny how all they seem to want to do is go "haha fukin canadian!" and just repeat their one liners about conspiracies they don'y understand with ni evidence to back it up? You do a good job of making them look like the lying sacks of crap they are.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
I asked several times to different individuals to tell me exactly what Peter Schiff has been correct about, and I have yet to get an answer.
I think I have more admiration and respect for the USA than 99% of the conspiracy dumb asses who live there.
Jacobrester 3 years ago
Yeah I get a kick out of their comments which are nothing but uninformed insults.Like I'm supposed to care that a bunch of morons think I am the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.
dsglop 3 years ago
friended!
truindep 3 years ago
can we flag this video for stupidity? rate it less than one star? nope? what a shame...
truindep 3 years ago
this guy is an idiot and needs to learn some basic economics
majmorgan2911 3 years ago
I couldn't stand listening to it... you don't even understand basic economics or a word what peter is saying... get a clue and stop posting shit!!!
gatzu86 3 years ago
This is quite sad...I'm at a loss of words.
Clemrm 3 years ago
you suck loser!
justgetsome 3 years ago
I stopped listening after 2 minutes, but you have no idea what you are talking about.
Peter is saying that Detroit needs to enter Chapter 11 so they can actually have an somewhat orderly contract renegotiation with the unions and get rid of their horrible management.
Get your facts straight. When a company enters chapter 11 they obtain DIP financing and are able to carry out business while reorganizing it.
deadwooder 3 years ago
The only way companies get access to more capital under chapter 11 is from not paying their debts which means all the peripheral industries who are already suffering will suffer more and many may shut down.I agree that the unions are a problem but they can let them strike and hire replacement employees in this labour market.And as I mentioned in this vid corporations can easily replace their management chapter 11 or not.
dsglop 3 years ago
The banking industry is not lending because real estate is still dropping and they are still suffering losses. Any money received from bailouts simply replenishes their reserves.
Capital investments should be financed through increased savings, not through costly govt issued debt.
Bailing out failing corporations is a very compassionate policy but unfortunately it is financially disastrous as it eliminates the risk of financial loss that guides prudent financial decision making.
madcubano1 3 years ago
TheCobaltAgent
"There are 3,000 less people in New York today because of my imagination. Thousands have been killed from Afghanistan to Kenya to Somalia because of a myth."
Yes that's correct.. If you don't understand how that could be(as most people don't)
Watch this BBC documentary
theinfovault(.)net/vault/streamingarchives_files/powerofnightmaresstreaming(.)html
Remove the brackets of course.
Atom299 3 years ago
listened for two minutes .. too bad youtube doesn't give a rating below 1 star (zero stars..)
talk about bad judgment ..
iraqiboy82 3 years ago
"dees222
The Origin and Myth of 'Al Qaeda'
watch?v=qNvqm_qgM5U"
Thanks for that link
Cheers
Atom299 3 years ago
ok...i can't watch the whole thing. hats off to you, though, dsglop. you are one uninformed idiot. keep parroting keynesian talking points and you will continue to sound like the moron you are. i'll be back again for laughs.
truindep 3 years ago
TheCobaltAgent
You really are arrogant aren't you? But you have your facts all wrong.
Al-Qaeda doesn't exist and never did.
It's that simple, believe it or not.
Atom299 3 years ago
I can be arrogant. There's no question about that. But then it's not hard when educating idiots. And you're right, al-Qaeda doesn't exist. The Kurdistan Worker's Party, the Palestinian Liberation Front, Hamas, Hezbollah, yeah those are all fake too. There are 3,000 less people in New York today because of my imagination. Thousands have been killed from Afghanistan to Kenya to Somalia because of a myth. You're a fucking genius. And FDR knew about Pearl Harbor, WWI was a scam and the Earth is flat
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
for your information al-Qaeda is a list of mujahadeen fighters trained by the CIA. FDR was warned by Australia and other countries that the Japanese were going to attack pearl harbour 8 days before it happened dipshit. with regards WW1 read up on the Lusitania and German ad's in the new york times. while your at it look up 'the gulf of tonkin incident' and the 'northwoods document' 13 march 1962 from the joint chiefs of staff to the secretary of defence. wake up idiot you need the education!
dusti111 3 years ago
Wrong on all accounts.
Mujahideen is a generic word used by many groups. The group we supported by that name in Afghanistan was not al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was started by a Saudi, Osama Bin Laden. The Mujahideen we aided warped basically into the Northern Alliance which helped us overthrow the Taliban. Al-Qaeda on the other hand worked with the Taliban to crush opposition and militant Mujahideen fighters.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
So there goes that theory. You're apparently ignorant of the fact that Afghanistan's been in a state of civil war since friggin 1978. The idea that it's all or nothing regarding aiding anti-Soviets in absurd and ignores the history of Afghanistan and its warring factions. But then you are an idiot.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
FDR was not warned that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor. That's a lie and a bad one at that. Nobody would believe Pearl Harbor would be attacked by anyone. It was thought impenetrable. Try actually looking that the IJN documents yourself regarding intelligence and data logs. In fact, Australia was a part of the British Empire at the time, and we shared intelligence with the British. FDR wanted to stop Hitler but in no way wanted another war with Japan.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
Both FDR and Churchill feared a two ocean war and that's a fact. Churchill got war when Japan attacked Malaya and FDR Hawaii. They were not known in advance. That's nonsense. Think, why would FDR have allowed Japan to attack Pearl Harbor only to lose the Pacific Fleet? You people are idiots.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
Why should I read up on the Lusitania? I'm the one that knows that the material on board the ship wasn't even known about by Germany and that they explicitly fired on the civilian cruise ship because of its national origin. They had no knowledge of weapons or goods being smuggled. It was nothing but a German massacre of civilians. Maybe you should learn about unrestricted submarine warfare.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
The Gulf of Tonkin wasn't a false flag operation like you idiots think. It was an error. They thought they were attacked before it as well, and besides that, we were already at war in Vietnam thanks to Kennedy.
And Northwoods never even happened. It was proposed by one jackass and swiftly rejected. That's like saying a politician violated a proposed amendment that hasn't even been ratified or passed. The government never tried to implement or carry out the proposed operation.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
And even then you don't even see why it was proposed. A little island off the coast of Florida call Cuba with a Communist dictatorship that we would fail to overthrow twice. And then there's the fact that many of the proposals for "false flag" violence would be simulated and not actually carried out against civilians. But you're a genius right? Try reading the document. You're an idiot. You need the education, you loser.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
Give a loser a warped, historical revisionist conspiracy theory and he'll shit himself. But it's always nice to assume the worst about America and stab her in the back while at the same time claiming to be defending justice and truth. Fucking loser.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
And what's all this got to do with this video and dsglop who made it?
I hope he's putting his money where his mouth is (behind the Fed) 'cause he's going to be taken to the cleaners.
We'll see how cocky he is then..LOL
Atom299 3 years ago
Do you even know how the market works? If you bail out companies where's the incentive to make money? If you let them go bankrupt there's still a demand for banking. Either clients go to existing banks or some entrepreneur buys the bankrupt bank's assets for cheap and opens his/her bank. All you are doing, by bailing out these companies is keeping the same morons that screws up to screw up again. And they will because since they have a safety net they will take more risks.
Perkest 3 years ago
I really have to wonder what's up with this rash of Canadians (the poster of this video and several of the commenter posters) carrying on that they are experts on the US economy.
Anybody else find this a bit odd?
freedomman121 3 years ago
Wow, a smart one. Why haven't you come to Canada?
dees222 3 years ago
/watch?v=LiIYkFXUhHs
freedomman121 3 years ago
Good video
dees222 3 years ago
What kind of mindless Alice in wonderland communist propaganda is this?
There are capital shortages because CAPITAL HAS BEEN SQUANDERED. This can only be remedied by under consumption and savings. The current regime which you seem to be happy with will hamper this recovery. Patience will be lost and there will be an exodus out of the U.S. for greener pastures.
krug24 3 years ago
Amen brother.
dees222 3 years ago
Let me guess, you think Jim Roger sucks too. Last time I checked...bad news always sucked! Let me guess you think Max Kaiser sucks too. Does it mean anything to you that these people have been right?
keltontrey 3 years ago
dees222
"Some call it a ponzi scheme" Yes all the fancy derivative schemes are like bulking up the fuel with air(froth). It now looks like you have a lot of fuel but it's just an illusion. It doesn't go any further.
Atom299 3 years ago
Atom299
You can try, but you can't be more right. Some call it a ponzi scheme.
dees222 3 years ago
"dees222
Come on guys, give the man a break; Have you ever wondered how the US economy have been working so far?" Yes..Living way beyond it's means. Borrowing more(other than for investment in wealth generating production)will only make things worse.
Atom299 3 years ago
Come on guys, give the man a break; Have you ever wondered how the US economy have been working so far? If people were all smart the US economy would have collapsed long time ego. After all, if you couldn't find a stupid person (speculator) that would buy your house/stock/etc more that what it was actually worth... do you think the economy could have come so far?
Viva ignorance. Let all help China grow.
dees222 3 years ago
Thanks freedomman121
You can have the best plane in the World but if you have a bad pilot your in trouble.
Likewise with the best pilot in the World and a bad plane (one with no liquid fuel like the US today)your also in trouble.
Keynesian approaches have often worked in the past leading to the belief there was a new paradigm. But they only worked because the fundamentals could support them.
This is what the Keynesians don't understand and why were in trouble.
Atom299 3 years ago
dsglop OBVIOUSLY has no idea what it means to live in a free market.
it's not the job of taxpayers to bailout failing companies. unemployment is expected to increase in 2009 which means people will not be able to afford cars, so why the fuck would you bailout a company that will just fail again? all you are doing is prolonging the problem! right now housing prices in the US are outrageous and the govt is trying to keep them high. if we cant afford them, prices must go down.
Kras3169 3 years ago
Let me explain something in simple terms.
Think of an economy as a plane. For a plane to fly well it essentially needs two things
1 Good engineering
2 Good piloting
Fundamentalists like Peter Schiff tend to focus on the engineering side. Today they're saying the plane is almost out of fuel.
Keynesians focus on the piloting. Today they're saying we need to gain height.
But that uses up more fuel.
Atom299 3 years ago
"Fundamentalists like Peter Schiff tend to focus on the engineering side. Today they're saying the plane is almost out of fuel.
Keynesians focus on the piloting. Today they're saying we need to gain height.
But that uses up more fuel."
Well put. Even the simpletons should be able to sort that out.
freedomman121 3 years ago
dsglop
About your first point. Banks that have no money to lend out should go bankrupt. The banks that still have money would either get those banks customers and/or buy over the bankrupt banks.
That is how a free market economy should work.
Atom299 3 years ago
You call this lame? You are thinking of a Strong Dollar under this current monetary Policy, that is not a Free Market. A real Free Market allows Small Business to be able to compete with Big; so if one goes down another replaces. High Productivity, More Variety, Cost Low.
This was directly to his Strong Dollar accusation of buying up nothing but cheap goods...
BIackOp 3 years ago
Jesus Christ, you people are pathetic losers. Stop spamming the guy's video. Try actually challenging what he says rather than posting links to your gay little playlists. Fight your own battles instead of linking to conpiracy nuts. And your sarcastic comments and stand alone comments asking about his education are lame. He's probably read more than all of you losers combined. Friggin Alex Jones zombies.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
Well.. First off, none of this is spam. I challenge his fucking ass, even provided the educated with the links. But all I get mouth and dodge. Why not check out the links before you leave a comment, but its already too late. You are a fucking douche bag...
BIackOp 3 years ago
Why should I check out your links? Why don't you make a real point instead of telling others to go on internet scavenger hunts? And just so you know, I'm a free market guy. I don't even agree with the guy. But I sure as hell don't side with the disgusting nutjobs that are attacking him. There's a difference between voicing disagreements and being a fucking asshole like you, douchebag. Go take a long walk off a short cliff.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
I made the "real point" and ADDED the links afterwards...You didn't read my comments did you? Its called material btw. When you refuse to even look at it that is called dodging.
"And just so you know, I'm a free market guy. I don't even agree with the guy. But I sure as hell don't side with the disgusting nutjobs that are attacking him."
So you 5 star? Please, you are for a Free Market but criticize us who are for the same thing. We attacked his material not solely him..
Take your own advice.
BIackOp 3 years ago
Bullshit on all accounts.
"Do you understand what a Free Market is? I guess not..." No, you started off by insulting his intelligence. You then said your friend needed to be educated for agreeing with him. You then accused him of wanting to shut off comments. You then made a lame attempt to define a free market with the sarcastic assumption he didn't know about it, despite the fact that he never even asked you. THEN you posted a link as a reply to your own comment. Good job.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
"We attacked his material not solely him."
Bullshit, you made no point. Just insulting the intelligence of others and making pointless statements stating the obvious adding a link afterwards. So fuck you, you troll. You're a liar and an idiot. And most of the other posts were no different than your own. I'm a free market man that can befriend a guy I don't agree with and defend him from unwarranted attacks.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
You really are a dumb ass. Read the fucking comments, if you don't understand them click the fucking links. And if you don't, stfu and gtfo. Because you are not being productive...
BIackOp 3 years ago
No seriously, either DO IT or fuck it... Now enjoy talking to yourself...
BIackOp 3 years ago
Good, shut the hell up and stop spamming the video with your senseless posts. Go worship RuPaul.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
Fuck you.
BIackOp 3 years ago
No, fuck you, dork. Run along now.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
Hey Cobalt, your profile has all of this stuff about being American, yet it says your Canadian. What's the story?
freedomman121 3 years ago
I'm an American. The Canadian flag was just something I never bothered to correct. I live in Jersey.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
Nothing but a fake Conservative. Tell me did you my message or did you just delete it?
I offer you a challenge, forget the name calling. Lets go for real... What do you say? Yes or No? The True Conservative Test...
BIackOp 3 years ago
No I read your stupid message and replied in full force. Tell me if you want me to post it here for everyone to see what an ass I make you look like.
And sure, any question, moron. I'm conservative to the bone.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
Insult, spam links, insult. Yeah, you're productive. Why don't you stop spamming the video with stupid comments and be productive elsewhere?
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
I'll just send you a copy message from my friend... Don't look it up, than you have no merit to continue to attack me.. I sent it to the author btw...
BIackOp 3 years ago
I'm not looking at your links. I don't need convincing about anything. I understand economics better than you and I've studied it long enough to understand that conservatism and free market principles are far superior to anything else in terms of profit and liberty. But my beliefs on the economy had nothing to do with my opposition to you. You can't even read, you moron. I don't agree with the guy on monetary policy. I support him against Paul, Jones, and so on and I defend him from you idiots.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
Why? Paul, Jones and so on are for Free Market Principles and Liberty. Why is there even a dispute? Why are you against People who are in agreement...
BIackOp 3 years ago
I don't oppose their free market beliefs. I oppose their other beliefs. The nutjob ones. You can't be an Alex Jones fan without knowing what a disgusting pile of trash he is. He's a conspiracy theory and a lying jackass. I'm not in agreement with them on everything. No way in hell, I'm a conservative constitutionalist, not a Libertarian.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
Reagan said Libertarianism is the heart of Conservatism. I guess you are a Liberal.
But lets find out... What is the role of Government? Short Answer.
BIackOp 3 years ago
He said they were travelling on the same path of wanting less government, but his statement about them being the same thing was about misnomers and how the meanings of words change over time. He also says conservatism is liberalism from the Enlightenment. Classical liberal, I'm sure you've heard of it.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
The role of the government is that which is layed out in the social contract that is the Constitution. The role can best be sumarized through the Preamble: Form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
Basically, defending the rights of the people and upholding civic virtue and civil liberties.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
Life, Liberty, and Property.
Its suppose to be Negative, Defensive, and Protective to our Rights. Not Positive, and leading the way... Correct?
BIackOp 3 years ago
You're wrong. It's not life, liberty, and property. It's life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. Saying you have the right to property is no different than saying you have the right to a home, or money. You don't. You have the right to the pursuit of property. You have to work for it; government doesn't or rather shouldn't just give it to you.
And yes, negative liberties are the only true ones. Positive liberties are false rights that only statists believe in.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
I agree I meant to protect your property..
BIackOp 3 years ago
You posted that awkwardly. I thought you were making two points about rights, first saying which rights there were and what government's role regarding those rights was. Fine then.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
This would have been easier if you saw that play list of Individualism vs Collectivism because what I saw in those videos zapped me.
Liberal - Democracy - Collectivism
Conservative - Republic - Individualism
It talk about the role of Government..
BIackOp 3 years ago
I know far more about government than a YouTube video could hope to teach me. I already know about republicanism and direct democracy. I oppose direct democracy from the Greek perspective. That's what the Founders called mobocracy. Mob rule is a danger to liberty, and so we became a republic. Republic translates into "public" which goes back to defending the people through laws. The law comes first.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
He compared the Free Market for what it is right now. That is false, I clarified later... What you call lame is what makes you no different then this idiot in the video, and for you not to check out the links makes you ignorant. You don't know the platform...
BIackOp 3 years ago
You can't compare something for something. That makes no sense at all. And you didn't clarify anything. You posted a link after a generic statement about how the free market works, a bad definition at that, not a clarification. You posted an insult presupposing he didn't know what free markets were, then later on decided to make another post with a bad generic explanation of a free market that he didn't even ask for. And don't need your links. And what platform, the platform of the Idiot Party?
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
And btw he wasn't exactly a modest citizen in this video, he was a fucking idiot especially at the end. He was being no different to Alex Jones, Peter, and Ron Paul than you take it that we are to him. And seriously, someone had to correct his ass. What did you come to find out? Multiple answers nailing each bit of his flaw in the logic. What are we suppose to do? Be Nice? He blocked comments in the last video bashing Peter. This video is nothing but a bash job, and you got problem with us?
BIackOp 3 years ago
It's his video. If you come in to my house I can talk how I want, and you're perfectly welcome to get the hell out if you don't like it. But maybe I'm biased because I actually listened to what he said when he's contantly taken apart RuPaul and Jones. I find it entertaining because of my dislike for those sick SOB's. I'll side with a non-conservative Canadian before I side with an anti-American American. The man actually refuted the losers while you don't. And you didn't correct him on anything.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
I am not Anti American, I uphold the Constitution. What makes me sick is people in your department "tear apart" people like Ron Paul, but why? He is upholding the Constitution. Is it his Foreign Policy? That is very America. Both parties, Federalist and Democratic-Republicans were for a Non-Intervention Foreign Policy... We have a form of Isolationism today, with all these embargoes going on.
Is it that you don't like his Domestic Stance? Why? Public Education isn't the role of Government...
BIackOp 3 years ago
You uphold the Constitution? Are you a Congressman now? You don't uphold shit. And if you're the kind of nut in agreement with Jones that thinks the wars are illegal and the result of an inside job on 9/11, then you're an anti-american.
I tear apart Ron Paul because he's a hack. He's not a conservative or constitutionalist, but a Libertarian. There's a difference. He doesn't uphold the Constitution when he outright lies about the War Powers Clause in Article One. He's a historical revisionist
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
You don't have to be a Congressman to uphold the Constitution. You can be just a mere Citizen of the Country.
BIackOp 3 years ago
That's a lame thing to say. Like sitting on your ass at the computer is upholding the Constitution. A soldier upholds the Constitution. A cop upholds it. A politicians could uphold it. You? Unless you're actually unvolved, then no. Casting your vote is the most you probably do to uphold the Constitution.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
And no, the two parties didn't have concrete foreign polcies. The two formed on disagreements on the size of the federal government and foreign policy was never truly an issue until the War of 1812. And let's remember something. Adams fought the Quasi-War with france, Jefferson the First Barbary War against the Barbary States, Madison the War of 1812 against the British and Second Barbary War against the Barbary States again. Let's not forget the Indian Wars.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
Monroe came up with the Monroe Doctrine, not very non-interventionist considering America herself didn't need to be attacked to provoke war. Washington aided the French to fight a Haitian slave revolt. Many took sides during the war between the British and French. Don't be an idiot. There weren't any Operation Urgent Fury's back then, but there were conflicts.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
I agreed on much of Paul's domestic policy, but not all. He's a nut that wanted to destroy the CIA and FBI.
And I don't support modern public schools, but it's a lie to say the Founders didn't support universal education. Many of them did. I don't, but the Fathers of conservatism thought it was needed to keep the public informed. They didn't forsee the problems with it today, but back then it was a given.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
He doesn't want to destroy them, just cut down the size. He wanted the CIA to stop going on assassinations and creating more blow back..
BIackOp 3 years ago
He said in one of the debates he wanted to get rid of them. That was out of his own damn mouth.
And you're an idiot if you believe the blowback theory. Though that'd explain your support of Paul.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
He clapped about it, but has specifically said he wants limit their roles to our security..
Are you saying that occupying land doesn't piss off the locals?
BIackOp 3 years ago
You two guys stop it.
BIackOp: Try to be understanding. Not everyone thinks like you.
TheCobaltAgent: Some fresh air can help your brain cells. Every once in a while try pulling your head out of your ass.
dees222 3 years ago
Go fuck yourself. Nobody asked you. Funny how I'm the one that needs to pull his head out of his ass when I'm the one that's right and he's the one that started this in the first place.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
I'm saying that having troops in Saudi Arabia, befriending Israel, and Operation Ajax don't cause the Twin Towers to fall down. The blowback theory is a blame America theory. It fails to account for many things, like why Islamists have been attacking those that are non-imperialist, non-Western, anti-American, not American or British, isolationist nations, and so on. The true motives of terrorists are simple to understand. They want to establish an empire. A global caliphate.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
But if that was the case, you are talking about multiple warlords allying up together... And last I checked, they don't like each just as much. Lets say Israel never existed and the Jews were even somewhere else. The Arabs would be killing one another like they are today. Look at Iraq and Iran, they hated it each other and at one time it was Persia... It just seems very vague, who? Where at? Do they want freedom to be left alone.
BIackOp 3 years ago
That's not the entire truth. Look at Hitler and Stalin. They were "allies" for some time before turning on eachother. Hitler and Mussolini didn't get along and Mussolini couldn't stand Hitler. Hitler couldn't get Franco to cooperate with him. Now these were all Fascists that found common ground in an anti-Communist pact yet also had several times gotten close to war. Hitler was afraid Italy would invade him because of Hitler's Austrian Nazi allies.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
But don't you question why we keep propping up dictators and backing a side, this does lead us to trouble doesn't it?
BIackOp 3 years ago
"But don't you question why we keep propping up dictators and backing a side, this does lead us to trouble doesn't it?"
Good question.
freedomman121 3 years ago
We very rarely have propped up dictators. The few dictators we've supported came to power without our intervention. Augusto Pinochet for example came to power through a military junta and was appointed by the military junta to lead. Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Stalin, and so on. Sometimes in order to defend freedom we've had to aid those we opposed. Stalin against Hitler, Saddam against the Ayatollah, Diem against Ho Chi Minh, Mao against Stalin.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
It's not enjoyable, nor worth celebrating. But in order to preserve the peace we've sometimes had to come to the aid of those that we disagreed with. If we didn't aid Stalin it would have helped our other enemy. If if didn't help Saddam is would have strengthened Iran. But those aren't the only battles. More often then not we don't have to choose between two evils, but just good and evil. We fought Stalin in the Cold War and Saddam from the Gulf War onward. It's complicated, but inevitable.
TheCobaltAgent 3 years ago
Cobalt, are you being paid to post on Youtube or any other site?
You talk some of the best CIA style frontier gibberish I've heard in a long time.
freedomman121 3 years ago
"We very rarely have propped up dictators. The few dictators we've supported came to power without our intervention."
OMG, have you ever studied real history?
freedomman121 3 years ago