Peter Schiff underestimated the wall street crooks

[modelmark]

I think it is also easy for Americans to underestimate the corruption in Europe. They tend to look at their own government and think:"what a mess, this has to fail, in europe or asia it can't possibly be that bad"

That assumptions is fallacious. They are possibly even more corrupt and irresponsible here in Europe.That is why the long euro/short dollar Shiff trade is dangerous.

[MillyVanillification]

@modelmark Lol. Europe has traditions. One of the traditions is not to buy more than you can afford. This concept is completely alien for US citizens. In Europe every 3rd adult has a credit card and every 5th is using it. In the USA the majority of the adults have more than 2 credit cards shifting the debt from the one to the other. Most firms in the USA with good performance have biz units in Europe. To compare the USA with Europe is simply ignorant.

[modelmark]

@MillyVanillification "One of the traditions is not to buy more than you can afford. This concept is completely alien for US citizens"

Really, is that a european tradition? I look around and see a few european governments (well, actually all of them) that have spent quiet a bit more than they can afford. Or are governments outside this tradition you speak of?

[coturnix19]

bankers are wankers

[TheAskMegChannel]

The entire thought of a credit system is delusional.

Eliminate ALL easy credit, base all credit decisions based on hard assets (home, car, property, gold, etc.) and we entirely FIX our financial system. Not just the U.S., but the world economy.

I'm sorry, but not everyone should be allowed to borrow money. When someone doesn't pay it back, it hurts not just the bank but everything it services.

[GusBariga]

did they ever get him on their show?

[bobbyb1978]

@GusBariga Yes, once on the Oracle I think over a year ago and recently on RT as well.

[AtlasShruggery]

Ironically, Schiffty Pete is a Wall Street crook, too.

[bobbyb1978]

@AtlasShruggery No, he's not. Schiff puts his money where his mouth is and owns what his clients own. If they go down, he goes down. Totally different with the Wall Street crooks. Also, Schiff is consistent in his views and admits his shortcomings. Overall, he's been absolutely right on the big picture and in terms of his investments for over a decade now.

[teller121]

Schiff has said over and over and over and over again, to no avail, that he doesn't change his portfolios over what might happen over one year, including 2008. He doesn't have a crystal ball and he freely admits he "misses" things. Look at his returns with foreign stocks over 8 to 10 yr period. Look at his gold (stocks and otherwise) returns over ten yrs - phenomenal.

The only fault I have with Schiff is that he is into the market, foreign or otherwise, when he's talking market meltdown.

[horny4Utube]

Robert Prechter called it all. No one ever talks about him because he's low key.

[jobedied]

I love this photo Bush giving Greenspan an award for turning America into a bunch of feces eaters. Looks like Greenspan is into eating his own feces and is full of himself.

[rickysixx]

This video is rendered useless today. You could answer all questions and doubts by merely listening to Schiff over the past few weeks.

[qweqqweqbt]

how do you think peter schiff and so many more bankers knew about this, told you all to put your money into it and still they all got their money out just in time leaving only their dummy corporations to go bankrupt?

wake up, they fucking orchestrated it! look at history dude. they do this all the time, they pump and dump. schiff is just here to keep it going. and everyone keeps falling for it over and over again like perfects suckers.

[spiepr25]

Have you seen any videos of Peter Schiff. He has been telling people to get out of any market where a bubble occurs starting with the tech stock bubbles of the 90s and the housing bubble just recently. You are wrong in saying that peter schiff has been pumping and dumbing as in your words. If you want to take a look at who is orchestrating this economy into the ground has been the federal reserve and the federal government. They are the culprits behind this calamity we are in.

[qweqqweqbt]

ya, but when does peter shciff ever blame the federal reserve and say that it's just a big scam and that we should get rid of it? show me that clip please. if he's so smart then why doesn't he tell the truth? why is he saying that the government just cuts spending then we can get out of trouble? the truth is no matter how much the government cuts spending it won't fix the problem with the federal reserve making money out of thin air and loaning it at interest, right?

[mandatum1979]

I don't think you have any idea who Peter Schiff is. Schiff constantly complains about the Fed Reserve. And yes, he has stated that the Fed should be ended.  You sir are an uninformed idiot.

[qweqqweqbt]

i think i was probably wrong about him. you're probably right dude. :)

[70road]

Good for you, it takes guts to admit being wrong, more people should do it.

[hungvan]

They sold to Norwegians, now some towns in Norwegian completely broke.

[prac2]

Narvik, but they were stupid to use public money

[seyeeyes]

as long as there are lips to be kissed, love will never die or say bye as my eye will all ways blink and wink wink and skate my lips over lips to slide my lips against and steal a kiss for it is not a crime . 4 eye am kiss me dove there is no place to hide. kissmass dove kissmet

[jaba987]

wow corruption arbitrage! that is such a valid point.

[synakcm]

@pirucreek

"All income over $100,000 should be taxed at 90% rate"

Then there is no incentive for anyone to work harder than your average car salesmen. That comment is ridiculous and would completely stifle innovation and the will to be successful in the US.

[Brainman94]

I know car salesmen that earn as much as engineers - despite doing only about 20% of the same workload - so obviously many people have a work ethic based on doing useful things - not merely making as much money as possible.

[YerTalkingKrap]

But the 90% comment doesn't make that distinction. So once more - who decides who's work is useful or not? And what about living costs where you live, regardless of how "useful" your work is? Adding all these criteria becomes a little unwieldy, don't you agree?

[Ntone606]

Please. Some of this things said in this video ARE NOT TRUE. Jim Rogers was UP for 2008. He was massively shorting US investment banks, and whilst he took a big hit on his Chinese and commodity investments, overall he was up. Note ALSO that Jim Rogers is a PRIVATE INVESTOR and does NOT manage anyone elses account like Schiff. Additionally, grouping Rogers with an awful money manager like Schiff is completely ridiculous.

[dakusahab]

do not invest in anything that is measured in dollars, or if u are make sure your timing is beautiful or else you will kick your self. knowing the truth doesn't mean you will be successful, we are talking about the collapse of an empire, it's not gonna go without a fight. good luck.

[dakusahab]

if u have money, the first thing you should be doing is finding a safe country to live, i.e. one best able to survive peak oil, New Zealand may be one of them It is too late to think china or india will be the next power. there will be no next power, us will not collapse is 2009. i believe the fraud will continue but before U.S collapses peak oil will cause the beginning of the "RESOURCE WAR". price will mean nothing, it will come down to what can you get your hands on.

[Brainman94]

interesting comment -

1. what makes you think New Zealand is highly suited to survive peak oil?

2. And why is it too late for China to continue its growth into a superpower?

[dakusahab]

1) well I don't know if new zealand is "the best" country to survive peak oil because for that i would have to look at the climate, society, ecology, and other systems of each country to find the best, but in terms of the general thinking of the public i can tell you that new zealanders have a history of trying to be self sufficient, and they subconsciously do things that work towards that even though they don't understand peak oil or care for it like the rest of the world.

[dakusahab]

2) If you want the simple answer, the country is way too big to survive the kind of resource depletion and energy shortage that is occurring "RIGHT NOW" and will get progressively much worse. Nuclear, coal, natural gas, oil, biofuel, they are all exposed to the diminishing ENERGY IN/ENERGY out ratio, that has been getting closer to 1. Put simply there isnt enough energy to power china's growth. google energy consumption of the world and economic growth, you will find they are coupled. i..e

[dakusahab]

when one drops the other will also, oil production has already peaked, it will decline rapidly from hear, but when we reach peak coal and natural gas (bout 3 years for natural gas and 10 for coal), we enter into irreversible decline that will make empire building impossible. most big countries will fail eventually (china, india, russia, indonesia, brazil, america, most middle eastern countries etc) though first will be a resource war. i cant explain this shit in few words, use google.

[dakusahab]

Although i respect and admire both jim rogers and peter schiff, i think they are partially right and because of that they too will suffer from what's coming. jim rogers knows economics but he doesn't know psychology or science. he thinks china will be the next U.S. even if he knows about peak oil he cant get it thru his skull what the consequences of that really mean. As for peter schiff he is the same, he is getting himself too much 'out there', i hope he isnt killed because of his big mouth.

[pirucreek]

That is all true. However, with government taxes additional inventions took place place like the microwave, LED lights, computers, railroads, jet airplanes, computer, stop lights, tv, remote controls, robotics. Taxes prevents the owners from completely dominating the world allowing new inventions to occur. Taxes on farmers allowed people to get into new industries that did not involve farming.

[Lucky7wins]

The pictures enhance what max and his partner has to say. Good job!

[pirucreek]

Are you just fkn stupid or what? Clinton used the surplus social security money to balance his budgets, moron

Wrong again. The budget was balanced revenues exceeded expenditures and inflation was thus zero.

[pirucreek]

You are a fool the taxes you pay go to pay the federal reserve for interest in the money they lend to us.

The federal reserve system is not need as he Treasury should be printing and controlling the money without interest. The money goes to everything NASA and supporting the troops.

[starclassics]

question: is the fed controlled by the government? if you can correctly answer this question, you officially have two more brain cells than I thought originally.

[pirucreek]

The fed is a private bank but the federal government has some say and elects its some of its members to 12 year terms. What should be noted about the fed is they can make money out of nothing. When the government borrows money the fed makes notes and charges us interest. Thus, IMHO the interest rates between the fed and the treasury should always be zero. Money is debt and debt is moey.

[pirucreek]

Use government aid vs private aid to Africa for an example. Which one does it more efficiently? Which is not compulsory?

blackrubberbag (1 day ago) Show Hide

The private sector can't compete with the low rates or service of the post office.

[pirucreek]

Cutting taxes allows more money to remain in the market to be used for production and hiring and such.

1) To produce what and for who. Most companies could expand 20% a year and most did under Clinton. There is no one to sell products to. Bush embarrassed himself at Home Depot claiming his tax cuts would cause growth. Taxes have very little to do with corporate growth. Home Depot exploded under Clinton growing 30% a year. They only grow 2% a year now even with no taxes.

[TadRapidly]

yeah, OK, lets all put all our money back into the dollar! YAY! The dollar rules! Stronger than ever!!YAY!!! Good God. I'd give my fucking last cent to Peter Schiff. He's as good as they get in the world of prediction. Love you Max and Stacy!

[pirucreek]

For some reason my message was cut.

Cutting taxes is worse than slavery. In the 1920s the taxes were high in the 70% range and cut causing the great depression. The depression did not end until 1944 when taxes were raised to 94% and the upper bracket dropped to $200,000. Clinton raised taxes causing the budget to be balanced and economy to improve. Don't listen to the slavery ridden right-wing movement. Cutting income taxes hurts the middle class and everyone.

[Bilakaifa]

So, what grade did you drop out of school at? Oh, wait, that is the b.s. they teach kids these days in government run schools.

Cutting taxes allows more money to remain in the market to be used for production and hiring and such. Taking it out of the market to be used by government might eventually make it back to market, but at a reduced value. Use government aid vs private aid to Africa for an example. Which one does it more efficiently? Which is not compulsory?

[blackrubberbag]

Pirucreek,

Is your comment some kind of performance art?

Ponderous.

[metropool]

you are a fool

the taxes you pay go to pay the federal reserve for interest n the money they lend to us

are you just fkn stupid or what?

Clinton used the surplus social security money to balance his budgets, moron

the entire lat 25 years has been an expansion due to easy credit- it is not real, it is not sustaninable and the longer the govt tries to sustain the worse the eventual collapse will be

pirucreek, go get your govt out of the mailbox, it wont be there for much longer

[starclassics]

he doesn't understand that the Clinton wealth wasn't real. He won't understand that because he has no degree in economics, hasn't studied it enough to understand how basic economics works. As an example of what not to do, look at every other economical history of Europe and China. That's what you DON'T want to do and we're doing it.

[pirucreek]

Clinton did balance the budget but it was under the boom of the dot boom captital gains. but the tax increases to make the wealthy pay part of their fair share. Helped the economy. He did not go far enough a 90% top bracket would have balanced the budget and create massive surpluses. Don't listen to FOX, CNBC, CNN they are all wn by rich peole that will tell you cutting taxes is good or helps the economy. They are slavery ridden lies.

[rmccay88]

@pirucreek You are so clueless saying raising taxes to 90 percent is good. That's what Hoover and Roosevelt did and it prolonged The Great Depression. Taxes at the highest rate were 25 percent under Hoover more than doubled it to over 55 percent and Roosevelt raised them through the roof, the tax policy was a big reason why The Great Depression was so prolonged. Not to mention that tax revenues would be sharply lower because everyone would hide their money oversees or in Trusts, smart one.

[pirucreek]

@rmccay88 Nonsense, taxes dropped in the 1920s almost 50% which aided the crash 1929. Taxes remained low until about 1938, when the rich people got scared during the war. The taxes rose though the roof form 1938 til 1960 (80% top bracket) which resulted in the best economy and surpluses of modern times.

[rmccay88]

@pirucreek

We had a bubble economy in the 1920's as a result from cheap credit and artificial lending, lower tax rates had nothing to do with the crash. We had a reckless monetary policy just like we have had this past decade along with artificial lending standards that triggered the housing bubble. History shows lower tax rates brings in more revenue, makes nations more competitive, increases productive capacity, and "the rich" pay a higher amount of taxes as a share of GDP when they are cut.

[pirucreek]

@rmccay88 1. History shows lower tax rates brings in more revenue, 2. makes nations more competitive, 3. increases productive capacity, 4. "the rich" pay a higher amount of taxes as a share of GDP when they are cut.

1. Complete nonsense, Reagan quadrupled the national debt, but revenues only doubled. The mass inflation did not equal the increased revenue stream. 2. Maybe, but who cares, what really makes a country competitive is engineering schools and no minimum wage 3. Nonsense 4. Lies

[rmccay88]

@pirucreek

1.) Reagan tripled the national debt from 900 billion to 2.7 trillion (Big difference from what you said.) His highest year of a deficit to a GDP was in 1985 at the height of the arms race against the Soviet Union. The debt was coming down as a share of GDP his last 2-3 years in office. And I like how you say my 3rd and 4th points are lies but provide nothing to support that. I could list 100 different examples of "the rich" paying higher taxes as a share of GDP, when they are cut.

[rmccay88]

@pirucreek

And since you brought up debts under Reagan, I couldn't help but laugh and mention that Obama Added More to National Debt in his first 19 months than all Presidents from Washington through Reagan.

[pirucreek]

@rmccay88 Are you that foolish, most of the debt the 700 bush bank bailout was done by Bush. Furthermore, it is the deficit as percentage of the national debt that is important. What is even more important is the change in the deficit. The change in the deficit has stopped. Reagan was a horrible president and history shows that.

[pirucreek]

@rmccay88 Furthermore, Sept 30th 2010 will be the 1st year responsible to Obama. At least Obama now has pay as you go and unlike Bush or Chaney (deficts don't matter) at least considers it bad to spend. Virtually all Obama deficits were momentum. If Bush was in office they would be even greater. Cutting taxes builds momentum for deficits, you all need to go back to school as you are all fools.

[rmccay88]

@pirucreek

Get your eyes checked, I never said Bush. I said Washington through Reagan, not Bush. Saying Reagan is a horrible President is up for other people to decide but you aren't going to be in the majority in that conversation unless you're at a Daily Kos convention. And where in God's green Earth did you get Obama is only responsible for one year tomorrow? He is responsible for his policies the second he is inaugurated and signs his name on his legislation, which is about 19 months now.

[rmccay88]

@pirucreek

The only momentum Obama has had is driving us deeper into debt and making the economy sicker. I am not a fan of Bush or a lot of his policies but the tax cuts had nothing to do with his deficits, they increased revenues. The out of control spending is why we had the deficits under Bush. But Obama has run up more debt in 19 months than Bush did in 8 years so any Liberal who wants to bash Bush's debt looks comical. U.S. deficit this year $1.7 Trillion Dollars. Staggering.

[pirucreek]

@rmccay88 During Bush years, due to the tax cuts we never reached surplus, even though when Clinton left office we were in surplus. The reason was the Bush Tax cuts and no decreases in spending. They even paid for a war with tax cuts. If they repeat stuff over and over on Fox it is amazing what ding dongs believe. The reason for the big deficit today is the same reason why all the states are in deficit. The collapse of the housing economy. Obama has about 11 months of debt to rack up .

[pirucreek]

@pirucreek Sept 30th will be the end of Obamas 1st fiscal year. All the money spent, the bank bailout was Bushes.

[pirucreek]

@rmccay88 Even today you have the right wing dogs in congress wanting to keep the Bush tax cuts for people making over 250K a year.

[rmccay88]

@pirucreek

You have to understand that the Clinton surpluses and economy was phony. It was a bubble economy the same way we have had a bubble economy in real estate and now have in Bonds. The Tech bubble burst in Bushes first year or two in office. But instead of letting the recession happen and after 9/11, the Federal Reserve propped up the economy with record low interest rates for years and cheap money (sound familiar) and as a result gave us the Housing bubble.

[pirucreek]

@rmccay88 The Clinton economy and surpluses were real backed up with data, Tech is a valid industry like Amazon, Yahoo, Google. Companies that have no earnings pay no tax. Bush tax cuts in 2003, caused revenues to drop. They paid for the war with inflation tax.  Then you have the housing bubble caused mainly by individual greed, with fuel by the FR, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and bad bankers. A typical housing bubble that occurs every 20 years. The fed is not the problem as congress can.

[pirucreek]

end the fed whenever they want. Bush could have vetoed all the spending bills. The reality is suppose a non-government economy is A. The government decides to take 10% taxes. So the economy is .9A+.1G. However, now the government employees spend their money at Walmart. And the non-government workers must now work 10% more hours to maintain the same standard of living. Thus the right side become 1.1A+.1G. So A = 1.1A+.1G . Government spending is the tax.

[rmccay88]

@pirucreek

That's false saying the Bush tax cuts didn't increase revenue. It did increase revenue government takes in from taxes. And all those problems you named about the housin bubble were only symptoms of the problem, not the disease. How did all this banks and mortgage institutions get all that cheap easy money? From the Fed of course. It would have been impossible for banks to do what they did without the Feds policy of low interest rates and cheap credit in 2001-2003.

[pirucreek]

@rmccay88 So the cheap easy money ended in 2005 causing a crash 1/20th of a century later? There is no doubt the federal reserve is a fraud.  But virtually the entire national debt can be attributed to the republican party - they believe in tax cuts at all costs, but do not cut spending with the tax cuts. Even Ron Paul says he wants tax cuts, even if no actions to spending cuts are taken. Peter Schiff the same, cut taxes and allow the deficit to balloon. Housing bbl occur about every 20 yrs.

[rmccay88]

@pirucreek

Yeah exactly. The easy money was ending and that's why institutions started to baulk in handing out mortgages and the next year in 06 housing prices started coming down some parts of the country where they had been bid up the most. I am not defending the Republicans record on our debt because it is pretty bad, but to say it is almost all their fault is false and is absurd as Barney Frank saying Fannie and Freddie were sound institutions for years before they collapsed.

[pirucreek]

@rmccay88 Freddie and Fannie should not exist imho. Also private property should not exist. In the land of the free, all land should be free. Department of education and Energy should not exist.

[rmccay88]

@pirucreek

Hey something we finally agree on...almost! I agree with everything except your statement regarding private property. There are a lot more departments that I am sure could be eliminated or cut drastically too if the cowards in Washington would do so.

[pirucreek]

@rmccay88 All land should be leased from the government. Land is the lifeblood of all living things. All homelessness and poverty is the result of private ownership of land.  Everyone should be able to lease 1 acre of land from the government for free.

[rmccay88]

@pirucreek

Ahh you had to get me on something where we disagree again didn't you? Lol. That's not what our country was founded on whatsoever. If you believe in individual liberty, freedom and personal resposibitly, than you would reject that notion. Nothing in the Constitution grants government the authority to do as you just described. Private property is one of our freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights.

[pirucreek]

@rmccay88 The founding fathers were land owners and slave owners. IMHO land owning is worse. The cause of the homelessness and poverty in the USA is private ownership of land and rent.

[rmccay88]

@pirucreek

Good grief. First off, you have to understand history. But more importantly the context of history. Slavery was a regular part of society for hundreds of years before the founders ever were born. It would take me 5,000 words to reason with you on that. Sorry, nobody in America is entitled to anything. Not health care, not a car, not money, you have to earn what you want in life. If a person is homeless, that's too bad but that is that persons chose. That's my last reply cause u crazy

[pirucreek]

@rmccay88 For there record for people following this thread. Max Keiser had two people stating the peak of America one said 1959 the other 1961. The top tax rates were 90% then and it was much harder to hide your money and far less tax breaks. The minimum taxes were 20% then. To deny that, and claim the words of Reagan, Laffer, Schiff (who also claimed the 50s were best), that tax cuts lead to growth is a joke. They make stuff up to keep their money so they can cheat on their wives

[TheAskMegChannel]

@rmccay88 Bubbles would go down (but not away) if credit were severely tightened. I know it hurts "growth", but as you can see from the Clinton years, so-called strong economies can be gamed by playing the credit market. The overheating that is a result of the Clinton economic 'miracle' was merely smoke and mirrors. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac should have never existed.

Old age: If you can't afford, don't buy it. If you don't buy it, you don't own it until you can pay CASH. Cash should be king.

[rmccay88]

@TheAskMegChannel

I agree with you 100 percent

[rmccay88]

@pirucreek

There are so many fallacies I don't know where to begin. Your right, Silicon Valley Is a valid industry (been there many times) but it was a bubble at the end of the day, fueled by fantasy unsustainable growth. You named Yahoo, you honestly think Yahoo dropped 90 percent by accident? It wasn't real growth and that's why prices came crashing back down to earth.

[updownleftrightinout]

Taxes pay for defense, police, fire, education, justice system, corrections, roads(bridges), sewers, garbage, water, family housing, R&D, disaster relief, national parks, government wages, and of course any other pork Congress consents to.

Almost all of that can be labelled essential services. Giving money to the banks was not an essential service. It was an impressive scam by the banks. Failure would have precipitated a recession but it would still have been better than where we are now.

[beeobeeisapieceofshi]

enjoyed that comment, well said

education could be cut, family housing could be cut, r&d could be cut, disaster relief could be cut, govt wages could be cut

[labartic]

You should read about the grace report. It stated that all income taxes collected only paid the interest on the national debt. pretty nuts.

[roseagain2]

Can't wait to here Peter on your show!!!

[peltecs]

If America continues its empire...the independent working Joe will be taxed heavily and the government employee will get the breaks. If this socialistic agenda continues the only lucrative jobs will be doing what the central planners have in mind.

[dontblamethemessenge]

if taxes are 90 percent i would not even go to work anymore.

[pirucreek]

Cutting taxes is worse than slavery. In the 1920s the taxes were high in the 70% range and cut causing the great depression. The depression did not end until 1944 when taxes were raised to 94% and the upper bracket dropped to $200,000. Clinton raised taxes causing the budget to be balanced and economy to improve. Don't listen to the slavery ridden right-wing movement. Cutting taxes hurts the middle class and everyone. Bump taxes to 90% and light the candle to the economy.

[fuzzywzhe]

> Cutting taxes is worse than slavery. In the 1920s the taxes

> were high in the 70% range and cut causing the great

> depression

Well gee whiz, let's raise taxes to 100% then we'll all be as free as possible.

You're making the post hoc logical fallacy. Even a cursory amount of thinking shows your conclusion to be false.

[pirucreek]

Taxes were 94% in 1944, this was considered the year the economy was the best in the history of the United States.

[fuzzywzhe]

> Taxes were 94% in 1944, this was considered the year the

> economy was the best in the history of the United States.

Considered by whom?

Between the period of 1870 and 1900 this country had no Federal tax, and during this time, the light bulb was invented, electricity was piped around, the telephone was invented, the first practical automobiles were made, 10 years afterward, the Wright brothers made their first flight.

And during the entire time, the US Federal gov had a surplus & no IRS.

[starclassics]

you fucking idiot...do you not realize what was going on in 1944? Do you know what saved us from FDR and the Depression?

WWII...and it's because our GDP and production went through the roof you insolent idiot. What a moron. Also...taxing the wealthy does nothing to stimulate the economy...redistributing the money from the wealthy doesn't work, why do people like you think that the rich are just the source of everything evil? I know rich people that worked their asses off to get there.

[pirucreek]

GDP went through the roof as result of the increased taxes for every dollar they spend probably results in $2 coming in. Taxing the wealthy takes away money from people that did not earn it. To build a house takes $50,000 and a year of labor. If a house cost $150,000. The maximun you should earn in a year is $100,000 after that you are using your power to steal. Most rich people I know actually work less than most of the workers.

[Brainman94]

I don't buy the argument "Rich people worked hard for it".

Maybe up to $10 million OK - fair enough - it's possible to work for that - NOBODY CAN POSSIBLY WORKED ENOUGH TO EARN BILLIONS (THAT'S THOUSANDS OF MILLIONS) OF DOLLARS - based on equitable remuneration across the whole community - that would require they work, say 1000 times the hours of say, a doctor or a nurse.

Capiche?

[YerTalkingKrap]

So wait ... you're saying that (in theory) if someone invented an insanely popular product, and made exactly $1 profit from it personally, and over 10 years he sells 10,000,000 of them, then you feel he's not entitled to his $100,000,000? He didn't "work" for it? Okay, technically he didn't work during those sales - so what do you think he IS entitled to? Who decides this magic number of entitlement?

[iamgabrielf]

Brainman94, do you really want to give politicians the power to decide what is enough, what is fair and, most importantly, WHO gets to decide?

Politicians NEVER do what is fair. They do what will re-elect them. The vote overrides the law, and fairness has NOTHING to do with it.

The mob cares nothing for fairness. It wants as much as it can get. The rich leave the region/nation/state. That's why democracies quickly decay into dictatorship.

[MillyVanillification]

@fuzzywzhe Taxes = wages. More taxes will lead to less private debt and more money in the national cash box. Cutting taxes is profit for folks who have money and bad for the not.-haves. People without money can't pay taxes but they'll get a job due to government contracts (infrastructure and public services). The conditions of USA's infrastructure and lots of public services is comparable to those of Rumania.

[fuzzywzhe]

@MillyVanillification "More taxes will lead to less private debt and more money in the national cash box."

Don't you realize that the more money you give the government, the more they just piss it away?

I work in the private sector. I actually WORK. I have to be good at my job. It's challenging.

The SEC couldn't figure out Bernie Madoff was a fucking crook. It took a PRIVATE CITIZEN to show he was, after he complained for a DECADE. That's a government "employee".

See the difference?

[onethreemc]

you have no understanding of the great depression or the economy. the economy isn't a candle that you can just "light," and it's not a car that you can "jump start."

[beeobeeisapieceofshi]

obvious troll is obvious

[pirucreek]

The economy can easily be started by taxing the wealthy. In fact it is the only way to really make the country great. It put man on the moon.

[starclassics]

we should put you to the moon. Taxes are a great source of revenue....yes. But it only serves to make the government more powerful, and I'll guarantee you this...in fact I guarantee my life savings on this...the bigger this government gets in the U.S., the more money will be lost. We will enter another depression, and I want to hear your pathetic excuse of understanding free markets and capitalism off which this country thrives. It WILL happen, I guarantee it. Taxing the wealthy does nothing.

[pirucreek]

All income over $100,000 should be taxed at 90% rate. This mooney will build bridges, the bridge workers buy health insurance and go to Walmart, all this money props up other businesses.

I don't want to mow George Bushes lawn. I want George Bush to mow his own lawn. If you are above mowing your own lawn, you don't deserve the money you stole.

[xaviqaz]

what???

[rikestard]

obviously peter schiff has thoght about this scenario.