I wonder how Mr. Schiff would respond to the claim that:
this economic crisis was caused by the fact that the free market is by definition inefficient in that risk taking by firms is under priced because they don't calculate in systemic risks
@tonybonez The second part of your claim is perhaps true (I don't really understand how "risk" can be "underpriced"), but you have to ask the question: inefficient compared to what? Free markets have proven to be the most efficient form of economic interaction. In fact, free markets are the only means by which humans have made any progress at all. He would certainly disagree with your claim that the current recession was caused by the free market. Bad monetary policy causes the business cycle.
Peter's thinking is 2 dimensional. He is implying a simple relationship between savings and capital. In other words, an increase in savings would create an increase in capital. But capital depends on other variables: inflation, debt, certainty, etc. Savings also affect all these variables. Savings affect debt, inflation, speculation, etc. The relationship may exist between the variables that he's talking about. But it's not so simple. Without considering other factors, his analysis is absurd.
INFLATION isn't real Capital, if it was we could print everyone a million dolars & we would have all the capital we would ever need! DEBT is the opposite of capital. CERTAINTY sounds too much like speculation which was the cause of the housing bubble. Peter is right, savings is the only true CAPITALl. It seems as if u r confusing symptoms of the economy & inflation in your argument.
Savings doesnt mean growth. It can be quite dangerous to nation, e.g. Japan. They been in a hole for 2 decades due to too many people saving instead of spending.
Peter preaches non-government intervention but if too many people are saving, only the government spending can lead to growth.
WRONG! Japan's stagflation in the 90's was caused by highly inflated asset bubbles in their stock market & real estate in the 80's. The high savings rate of their citizens allowed them to absorb the effects of the stagflation which would have otherwise been more severe. Since we have no savings here in the U.S., our Gov't deals with our busted asset bubbles with more inflation & more spending. We'll see where this gets us in the end.
I wonder how Mr. Schiff would respond to the claim that:
this economic crisis was caused by the fact that the free market is by definition inefficient in that risk taking by firms is under priced because they don't calculate in systemic risks
tonybonez 1 year ago
@tonybonez The second part of your claim is perhaps true (I don't really understand how "risk" can be "underpriced"), but you have to ask the question: inefficient compared to what? Free markets have proven to be the most efficient form of economic interaction. In fact, free markets are the only means by which humans have made any progress at all. He would certainly disagree with your claim that the current recession was caused by the free market. Bad monetary policy causes the business cycle.
strabes88 1 month ago
Peter's thinking is 2 dimensional. He is implying a simple relationship between savings and capital. In other words, an increase in savings would create an increase in capital. But capital depends on other variables: inflation, debt, certainty, etc. Savings also affect all these variables. Savings affect debt, inflation, speculation, etc. The relationship may exist between the variables that he's talking about. But it's not so simple. Without considering other factors, his analysis is absurd.
franchescadelncy 2 years ago
INFLATION isn't real Capital, if it was we could print everyone a million dolars & we would have all the capital we would ever need! DEBT is the opposite of capital. CERTAINTY sounds too much like speculation which was the cause of the housing bubble. Peter is right, savings is the only true CAPITALl. It seems as if u r confusing symptoms of the economy & inflation in your argument.
moybutter 2 years ago
Savings doesnt mean growth. It can be quite dangerous to nation, e.g. Japan. They been in a hole for 2 decades due to too many people saving instead of spending.
Peter preaches non-government intervention but if too many people are saving, only the government spending can lead to growth.
xrangerx 2 years ago
WRONG! Japan's stagflation in the 90's was caused by highly inflated asset bubbles in their stock market & real estate in the 80's. The high savings rate of their citizens allowed them to absorb the effects of the stagflation which would have otherwise been more severe. Since we have no savings here in the U.S., our Gov't deals with our busted asset bubbles with more inflation & more spending. We'll see where this gets us in the end.
moybutter 2 years ago
It's logic !
Actually the only economic logic you will find it in the Austrian Economics !
That's it !
From Von Mises, Rothbard, Hazlitt, Thomas E. Jr. Woods with his best selling MELTDOWN, Schiff etc ...!!!!
This is the road people ! Educate yourself because the gov it wont do it ! That's it ! Simple as that !!!
secretarul 2 years ago
Did you talk to him in person? That would be cool to ask him questions.
nambypamby34 2 years ago
I think Peter just has a hard time naturally with microphones...
Astrocreep69 2 years ago
He's Brilliant but nobody will listen
YankeeClippa 2 years ago 5