Oh short sighted Peter always a laugh watching him. People are amazed at your flagrant disregard for rules & policies, the legal bills you complain of wouldn't exist if you would adhere to them
He has an answering machine instead of a receptionist because the government makes it too expensive to hire a human being?
Oh pleeeease. Even if the government didn't "make it too expensive" to hire a human being, he still wouldn't hire a receptionist because at the end of the day the answering machine is still cheaper than a human being. What a bullshitter
@robgrauertvideo He's an absolute bullshitter 100%. The answering machine instead of a receptionist is a perfect example of technological unemployment.
@evangrogers Please don't tell me you still support Obama. He is probably the worst president we ever had. I mean honestly, what good has he done for this country. In fact he hasn't, he made things worse. We can't afford another 4 years of Obama. With the amount of damage he caused in 4 years, I can't imagine what he would do in another 4. Anyone is better than Obama at this point. I don't see how anyone could still support this clown.
I agree with Peter on most things but he interviewed Robert Kiyosaki a while ago and Robert told Peter he needed a new accountant for his tax problem. You can find the conversation on youtube.
@Tasadaru I remember that interview. Peter Schiff was mainly talking about the problems of our system and how it should be While Kiyosaki was talking about how to play the game as it is. Schiff does have a problem of interrupting people.
Schiff has a major chip on his shoulder. Sounds like he should not be in business. If you can't follow the rules he should not have a business. Our country is formed on rules & regulations. You don't like it move to another country!
@dorrielove What kind of crap have you been eating for breakfast?! America was NOT based on rules and regulations. Learn some history before you make some retarded comment like that. Better yet, you might as well just do everyone a favor and keep your crap hole shut!
The smart are following Peter right out of this country. The crash that Peter talks of will crush this country. The higher the standard of living the harder the fall will be. Prepare a retreat for yourself buy seeds and supplies for the worst case scenario. Biospharms has info to help. Prepare now go to
@mrgeestacksalot I hear ya on that one my brother loud and clear it's pretty disgusting not much sanity coming from other comments a normal person should be repulsed
@FenrirLupus Why don't you suck on my left nut I don't buy Schiffs story anyway of why employers aren't hiring,
just because he got it right on some things doesn't mean his word is now gospel When Max Keiser appears on Fox which he won't then there might be an argument Huckabee is a disgusting pig any one who can stand to watch this filth is skewed at best.If he wasn't defending employers they wouldn't have him on.Peter Schiff has an answering machine instead of a secretary is disgraceful.
@FenrirLupus Why don't you suck on my left nut I don't buy Schiffs story anyway of why employers aren't hiring,
just because he got it right on some things doesn't mean his word is now gospel When Max Keiser appears on Fox which he won't then there might be an argument Huckabee is a disgusting pig any one who can stand to watch this filth is skewed at best.If he wasn't defending employers they wouldn't have him on.Peter Schiff has an answering machine instead of a secretary is disgraceful.
I make under $100K a yr and I pay about 25-30% in ALL taxes.. Taxes are my #1 monthly bill with food costs coming in second. My mortgage comes in third.. That is f'ed up...
I lilke Peter Schiff a lot but this interview comes across as one of those infomercials -- you know, when the host interviews people but asks questions that directly promote the product. Huckabee isn't even listening and is just trying to use the interview to promote his republican anti-Obama ideas. Good to see Peter getting more press.
@inhocsignovinces312 Well they have to introduce the guest...and what his qualifications are. If he's saying he called the crash of 08 before it happened, then he has to show you where he wrote it. And if he's not able to hire anyone, he's going to need to state what his business is, and what he does. How could you have this interview and NOT mention these things?
@shmiggen Are you willing to use force against non-violent people in order to achieve your political desires? I can understand that many people want this policy or that, but the key question is: are you willing to use violence in order to get your way?
The truth revealed: smiggmiester "cannot tolerate a rich man..." who wants to run his business without SHMIGG ' s permission. Free human beings do not need your permission.Collectivist shill.
@slickbtk not cop-out, keen observation on your part. Shmignoramus substitutes coercion and international government collusion "banking" for the legitimate BUSINESS of banking, which has been eradicated by government "regulation".
"I wish I could be upgraded to the level of a serf" that's how bad this country has gotten. Thankfully there are people like Peter schiff fighting against it
The CONSTITUTION authorizes no banking Monopoly. Congress has only the permission to COIN money. States may only recognize gold & silver. Central banks KILL... econ
The constitution is a piece of paper that politicans wipe their ass with. We are not longer a nation of laws but a nation of MOB RULE. People prefer their entitlements over an out of control government.
Take your money out of the Jewish Federal Reserve banks, get out of debt and STAY out of debt (cut the parasites off), leave the US if you can, refuse to fight in Zionist wars, turn off their propaganda news channels, and boycott Hollywood (watch for free on internet). Fuck Israe
"Deregulation" did not cause the bubble. REGULATION causes malinvestment. Forcing banks to make subprime loans and guaranteeing the deal with tax money is REGULATION. Changing the rules is not "deregulation", it is re-arranging the controls, and that did cause the bubble to burst. Peter Schiff and other Austriain economists saw it coming. YouTube ""Peter Schiff was right".
@irdial Please explain your statement in more detail. Governors are part of the executive branch of state governments. They don't vote. How did Gov Huckabee vote for any legislation in Arkansas that affects Peter Schiff in Connecticut?
@Snidely175 Take a look at this: shaunconnell (dot) com (slash) huckabee-a-conservative Huckabee is a manic regulator, anti-homeschooler, big government statist republicrat. Look at _pLOC4krZI4 on YouTube. These are all facts. He if he has now realised the error of his ways, then all well and good, but as a part of the State he did the sort of economic damage that he now decries, and that is the truth.
I generally don't mind Peter Schiff but the Fox logo and definitely Huckabee are enough to make me want to puke my guts out Schiff is doing the country a disservice by lending Huckabee and Fox enough credibility to appear on the show.
I generally don't mind Peter Schiff but the Fox logo and definitely Huckabee are enough to make me want to puke my guts out Schiff is doing the country a disservice by lending Huckabee and Fox enough credibility to appear on the show.
@gatecomingdown Whatever you think of Fox and Huckabee, they are getting Schiff's very important message out. It's the free market at work. People want to hear Schiff, so Fox gives them Schiff. Isn't it grand hearing Schiff instead of O'Reilly?
@ArmednSafe sorry but Schiff appearing offers Fox somebody to hide behind and even lends them credibility
O'Reilly sows them for who the filthy scum they are. Schiff needs to stop acting as a shield for Fox it's even more inexcusable that neither doeas he have an agent nor a contract.Your either part of the problem or part of the solution get off the fence I say to Schiff.
@gatecomingdown So just because someone disagrees with you on somethings means you should cease interacting with them completely? Peter's ideas are best served by getting them out to as many people as possible, when he has a disagreement with someone he voices it.
@ArmednSafe typos fixed sorry but Schiff appearing offers Fox somebody to hide behind and even lends them credibility of which they none ,O'Reilly shows them for the filthy scum they really are. Schiff needs to stop acting as a shield for Fox it's even more inexcusable that neither does he have an agent nor a contract.Your either part of the problem or part of the solution get off the fence I say to Schiff.
@ArmednSafe Employers sure don't have a problem hiring illegal aliens for slave wages I bet your buddy Schiff wouldn't have a problem hiring if he could strip a worker of all their rights as an employee I got your maturity and objectivity right here why don't you come and get it
@gatecomingdown You call them "slave" wages, but the employees and employers both agree willingly on the exchange. In what way is that "slavery"?
People don't have rights as employees. They have rights as individuals. They have a right to trade their labor how ever they want. If an employer and an employee come to an agreement, that is their right as individuals.
@ArmednSafe you lost me what your saying completely contradicts what Schiff is saying that employees exploit their rights at every given moment the rest of your schpeel would work well on an episode of Mister Rogers.
Technically street corner laborers are not literally slaves or are they? no grey area there for me the agreement for pay
is usually based on how far the employee is willing to be exploited minimum wage is also not technically slavery since you could probably live out of your car
@gatecomingdown I was talking about a free market situation. Yes, the government has created all these guarantees for employees to take advantage of. But, in a free market where property rights and contract rights are recognized, the only thing the employee would be guaranteed would be what is in their employment contract.
@gatecomingdown I would argue the opposite. Schiff being on FOX is great for those people who only watch FOX...they might never have heard about him otherwise.
So if American businesses do not cover their employees health care, who will? The employee? From their own savings? Schiff cannot have it both ways. He either pays his employees health coverage or he moves to another country. It's that simple. Of course, the other option is a public option. Again - you simply cannot have something for nothing. You either comply with American law and cover your employees health care or you simply try your luck under a foreign flag.
@shmiggen well his point is if he has to cover health care etc for his employees, it will mean he wont hire more people. Hes saying regulations cause him to stay as a smaller business. And the whole reason is for people to understand why unemployment is so high in ur country (highest since great depression), its because of regulation.
The corporate tax rate is too high. 20% would be reasonable, but 30 - 35% is the highest in the world, I believe. However, Schiff is wrong is certain specific ways. Firstly, all businessmen dislike regulations - this isn't news. I would love to pay my employees one dollar per hour, but I can't. Is it wrong that I cannot? I don't have the answer, so I will let you be the judge. But we have a tradition in America where employers pay for their employees health care. Is that necessary?
@shmiggen It is not government regulation that prevents employers from paying workers one dollar per hour its free market competition. If you tried to pay your employees one dollar per hour they would quit and work for a different employer willing to pay more. Regulations act as a tax on jobs, resulting in lower wages as money that would otherwise have been paid to employees is used to pay the costs of regulations instead.
@shmiggen if you tried to pay your employees $1 and hour then no one would work for you. What is wrong is that employers cannot pay people what they would be willing to accept.
@slugga06 Why is it wrong that employers cannot pay people what they would be willing to accept? By the way, I suspect he is upset not because of wages, but because of health care - which is more expensive than wages. But again, I cannot tell because he did not specify. But this is my point: American law stipulates that employers must pay for their employees' health coverage - a law which dates back to WW2. This is not a "new regulation" invented by Obama.
@shmiggen "Why is it wrong that employers cannot pay people what they would be willing to accept?" because it increases the price of the goods b/c the employer factors in wages as part of the cost to produce the goods. If both partys agree to a wage, then why should there be a problem? As for healthcare, just because the law was written during WW2 doesn't mean it was right. It could be anyone writing these bad laws, obama, bush, FDR, reagan, it doesnt matter. It is the law we have a problem with
@shmiggen "Why is it wrong that employers cannot pay people what they would be willing to accept?" because it increases the price of the goods b/c the employer factors in wages as part of the cost to produce the goods. If both partys agree to a wage, then why should there be a problem? As for healthcare, just because the law was written during WW2 doesn't mean it was right. It could be anyone writing these bad laws, Obama, bush, FDR, reagan, it doesnt matter. It is the law we have a problem with
Respond to this video...Schiff needs to come clear regarding the specifics of those regulations he dislikes. The American people are fed up with abstract thought. I do like Schiff - his advice regarding stocks and precious metals is accurate. But he is shifty on regulations. Anyone can say they dislike regulations. Who the fuck doesn't? I don't like regulations. Big deal. Let's hear Schiff say which specific regs he dislikes, then we can have a conversation.
@shmiggen Isn't that what he just did? He just explained numerous regulations and how they affect his business - he mentioned money laundering regulations from the Patriot Act, for example.
@CohibaSkeeza That isn't good enough; it's a cop-out. He said nothing of substance, and yes, I did go back and re-watch the video. He mentions his dislike of FINRA, and also his dislike of Warren Buffet, but nothing else. Go ahead, I challenge you - show me one specific regulation Schiff alludes to. I didn't hear any.
@shmiggen Everything he says has substance if you understand free-market economic theory. Minimum wage laws, tax burdens leading to health insurance, workers compensation, etc. He didn't list the particular regulation for which he was fined but obviously there is a regulation or he wouldn't have been fined. "how many reps you can have and how many you can hire, then a safe-harbor rule."
What is even your point? that there are no regulations preventing business and this is all made-up? LOL.
@shmiggen@shmiggen Everything he says has substance if you understand free-market economic theory. Minimum wage laws, tax burdens leading to health insurance, workers compensation, etc. He didn't list the regulation for which he was fined but obviously there is a regulation or he wouldn't have been fined. "how many reps you can have and how many you can hire, then a safe-harbor rule."
What is even your point? that there are no regulations preventing business and this is all made-up? LOL.
@CohibaSkeeza The point is I cannot tolerate a rich man who comes out and says he does not like regulations, when three years ago the financial world unraveled because of a lack of regulations. How irresponsible is that? It was in the spirit of deregulation that Glass-Steagall was repealed, an act that was designed to control wildcat speculation. And you say we need more deregulation, LOL. Minimum wage laws do nothing to discourage business. Worker's comp is insurance for those who CONT'D
@shmiggen It wasn't a lack of regulations - that is the disconnect. The problem is the Fed, not lack of regulations. Big business wants regulations to keep lower-level competitors from competing. Minimum wage laws require businesses to pay people more than what they are worth, reducing the amount of employees to reduce overhead.
Health insurance started in the 60s and 70s as taxes started to increase, it is not the American way. You make our point regarding why unemployment is high.
@CohibaSkeeza How do you support these assertions? It isn't enough to merely assert something. Anyone can do that, but when you support it with evidence, then we can talk. Yes, big business always tries to crush smaller competitors. Nothing can stop that. Minimum wage is so small that to suggest anyone is worth less is laughable. Anyone can afford seven dollars per hour. Health insurance started during world war 2, because no one on their own can afford private insurance. Cont'd...
@shmiggen Support what assertions? If I made assertions then you made assertions. We can stop big business from crushing smaller competitors by ending their regulations. No, its true, people really aren't worth the minimum wage - the problem isn't the wage it is the cost of living which is caused by inflation via the Federal Reserve. You're right about WWII - it was due to taxes and non-salary benefits and never ended cause taxes have continued to increase - 99% paid no income tax until WWII.
The other reason why health insurance began as part of an employee compensation package was because during World War 2 there was a labor shortage, and so the government created wage controls. But the main point is, if you do not want to offer health care as part of the overall employment package, then you will have to leave the USA. It's either that or we get a national health plan. You cannot have both. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
@shmiggen Exactly, which is why business is leaving and why we have economic trouble and high unemployment. so, you are getting the point - you agree with Schiff.
We can have neither. If employees aren't getting insurance, then health care costs will drop - we won't need "insurance". Insurance is really for emergency situations, not regular check-ups and prescription drugs.
@CohibaSkeeza Health care costs will drop...if we do not obtain health insurance. Uh, ok. I'm not following your logic, here. You think market competition will lead to lower health care costs? We already have market competition. This is the USA. We have a for-profit health care system. Where are these low costs of which you speak? You cannot afford your own individual plan over the age of 40, you will be literally creamed by the cost. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
@shmiggen Yes, this is well-explained by economic theory. Health Insurance isn't really insurance. What happens is that prices are bid-up beyond what the market would allow. Consider laser eye surgery and breast implants - these are not generally covered by "insurance" and the prices have gone down and the methods have increased. This is what the market does - look at electronics or anything else. Over-time prices come down and quality goes up. Not with medical care - prices continually rise.
@shmiggen cont... This happens because the medical industry is highly regulated and due to subsidies going by the name of "Health Insurance". There is the flaw in your reasoning - you are assuming we have a free-market in health care. We have no such thing - at one time we did and doctors would make house-calls and very few people went without some kind of medical attention. You need to rethink some of your preliminary assumptions - I think you will find that they are poor ones.
@CohibaSkeeza How is the medical industry highly regulated? Do you mean malpractice insurance? Also, what do you mean by subsidies as health insurance? You lost me there, too. Yes, at one time doctors did make house calls, that was the old fee for service way that we had for a long time. Are you suggesting health insurance itself is bad? That we should simply pay in cash out of pocket, every man for himself? Is this what you are driving at? That will never happen...cont'd....
@CohibaSkeeza How is the medical industry highly regulated? Do you mean malpractice insurance? Also, what do you mean by subsidies as health insurance? You lost me there, too. Yes, at one time doctors did make house calls, that was the old fee for service way that we had for a long time. Are you suggesting health insurance itself is bad? That we should simply pay in cash out of pocket, every man for himself? Is this what you are driving at? That will never happen...cont'd....
@CohibaSkeeza because costs are so high no one man can go it alone. If employers do not wish to pay health insurance, that is fine, but they must also realize that the American people will inevitably demand a public option. This is happening already with Massachusetts, Vermont, Illinois, Pennsylvania and other states. There is no going back to paying doctors in cash for services rendered.
@shmiggen Prices are high because of health insurance, not the other way around - that is the point. We don't want any insurance except for serious emergency situations. Do you have home insurance for light bulb replacements, leaky faucets, broken windows? No, you have insurance for freak incidents. That way prices will plummet and medical options will increase while quality goes up - just like everything else in the marketplace. Healthcare is a good/service subject to market mechanisms.
@CohibaSkeeza What is your overall point and how does it relate to Peter Schiff? I agree that catastrophic injuries are expensive and this is why we purchase health insurance. But what was your point? I thought that was obvious. What does "prices are high because of health insurance" mean? You lost me again. Are you saying the person with a chronic illness, like say, leukemia, should pay in cash for their medical bills, out of pocket? I don't know what you mean, specifically.
@shmiggen We were discussing how regulations are driving businesses out of the country - destroying our jobs market. Then you mentioned that health care started to be provided because of high costs and I said that was wrong.
Right, the part you aren't seeing is how health insurance drives up health costs and reduces quality. Think about any good or service which is subsidized by either government or otherwise. Why is laser eye surgery going down in costs? Not subsidized by "health insurance".
@CohibaSkeeza If you want to learn about the history of health insurance in the USA, there is a wikipedia entry on it. I did not pull it out of my arse. During WW2, the nation leapt from a small fraction of people with health insurance to about 80%, and they obtained it as part of an employee package. Employers were not allowed to pay high wages because of government mandated wage controls due to a labor shortage.
How is health insurance a subsidy? This I do not comprehend. Cont'd...
@shmiggen I know how it started - I was the one who brought it up. High government taxes resulted in employers finding ways to give incentives that were not taxable. Exactly the point both Schiff and I are making.
I tried to explain how it works as a subsidy below. Think about if we were at an auction and everyone had around $100 give or take and then consider another scenario where everyone had around $500 - they bid on the same thing but in each scenario the selling price is different.
@shmiggen Could you imagine if all food, electronics, clothes, cars, etc. were purchased through some type of group coverage plan whether government wealth redistribution or quasi mandated through high sales tax? Everything would cost a fortune, there would be 3 kinds of cellphones, 3 kinds of cars, and they would suck because there would be no incentive to produce quality stuff since purchase of those limited goods would be guaranteed. There would be no pricing structure to lower prices.
@CohibaSkeeza this is not a proper analogy. Health insurance is...insurance. Cars, clothes and food are not insurance. It sounds like you are against the concept of insurance. Is this what you are driving at?
@shmiggen Yes it is, what we call health insurance is nothing like real insurance. We enroll in group programs which remove generally routine medical services from a typical market scenario where the prices of goods and services are established through a "bidding" process - pricing structure. Because the supply of these services is not bound to the potential of an individual to pay but is "bid-up" through the insurance company, the price rises far above the market value. cont...
@shmiggen ....the insurance company with an account filled with money does not have the same perception of the value of the services as the individual. $1000 may be a lot to a middle-class person but is not a lot to a company with millions of dollars - so, they don't see a problem with forking-out $1000 for stitches. The individual would, and in the absence of these "insurance" companies, the medical sector could not charge that amount for such a service - they would have to lower the price.
@CohibaSkeeza Yes, you have no argument from me here. But health insurance was never designed so that when a trifling matter such as stitches comes along, people have the means to pay - they do. Health insurance is designed so that when cancer comes along, you can pay. Is this not obvious? I still fail to see your point. Who cares about a bruised elbow or a tooth-ache? I am talking about cancer and chronic disease. This is the point of health insurance, so what are you talking about?
@shmiggen Exactly, you see my point. People are using insurance for routine check-ups, cause they think they have the flu, cause they broke their arm, cause they need pain meds, they have a cavity, they need stitches, they need glasses/contacts, etc. etc. etc. This drives up the costs of basic stuff that by this time should be extremely cheap. The higher cost stuff works the same way. MRIs, Chemo, etc. - also those things are highly regulated - also increases cost due to less competition.
@shmiggen Those minor things are what most people want insurance for. Obamacare/Etc. isn't about treating only people with serious conditions. But the cost of those serious conditions is brought up not only by "insurance" but regulations that hinder competition. You can only practice "medicine" if the government approves it - that is not free market. The medical industrial complex and insurance co. loves regulations cause they can then monopolize and charge ridiculous prices.
@CohibaSkeeza Wait a second...I am trying to be patient with you but you are going in circles. Again, I know what you are against, but I do not know what you are for. Are you saying the best way to pay for intensive care, cancer and chronic illness is in cash, out of pocket? Just wing it? Are you saying that the cost of cancer treatment would go down if there were no insurance, but rather, paid in cash? Please answer this simple question so that I know I am not talking to a crazy person.
@shmiggen We need to get government out of the business of regulating medicine and lower taxes drastically across the board so that subsidized health care through insurance is ended; leave insurance only to those people who want to risk paying. Costs will drop to within reason for most people. I want for as many individuals as possible to have the best health care possible, that is why I don't want government involved at all since they only increase costs and decrease quality despite their aims.
@CohibaSkeeza Ok, now I get it. You want to end Medicare and Medicaid. That's fine, I didn't know what you were driving at but now I do. I don't have an opinion on those programs, probably because I am not a participant. But I still don't know what you mean by "subsidized health care through insurance". Is that a specific reference to Medicare and Medicaid? I'm looking for specifics. When you say, "leave insurance only to those people who want to risk paying", do you mean ....Cont'd..
@shmiggen If health insurance was never intended for minor things, then why does my policy, and every health insurance policy I've ever had, cover minor things?
@BPKesq because the likelihood you will suffer a catastrophic illness is up for grabs. It's unknowable. So if you continue to pay premiums and you never get cancer, you are entitled to some kickbacks. Those kickbacks are a reduced rate for minor surgery. But ultimately, when people take out of a health insurance policy, they are attempting to protect themselves against a catastrophic illness.
@shmiggen I don't want to outlaw anything. Health insurance acts as a subsidy by paying prices for medical services that would never be paid in the market. Ask yourself, why does everything except for health care go down in cost and increase in quality/availability over time?
In addition to eliminating all government health care, also eliminate the taxes that lead to the health insurance benefits by business during WWII, thus ending HI so that prices will drop and the lower class can afford it.
are injured on the job. Health insurance is employee sponsored because that has been the American way, in the absence of a national health care plan. If employers do not wish to provide their employees with health insurance, then they are free to relocate to another country. However, if they wish to do business in America, then they must abide by American law. They cannot have their cake and eat it, too.
It isn't dealing with abstract thoughts. Peter Schiff has common sense advice and is giving it. It is kinda hard to lay out evidence for his positions in a short interview.
The American people want results period. Yes they like a good message but ultimately it comes down to food in the belly.
Let me help you out with regulations...Peter Schiff does not like any regulations that hinder businesses. He is said that free markets do the job of regulating. The less the better.
@gideondavid30 Wait a second - do you not remember 2008? I'm trying to be as reasonable as I can. Tell me how the crash of 2008 had nothing to do with deregulation. If you can do that, I will listen to you. Because I like to think I am reasonable. I understood the crash of 2008 (and 1929) was because of business and financial deregulation in conjunction with reckless banking. Deregulation leads to credit default swaps, doesn't it? Without regulation, banks peddle toxic waste.
I was not defending Peter Schiff's position. I am simply giving you his beliefs as far as I know them.
Now to your point: you ( a reasoanble person) would agree that regulations do create obstacles for businesses? I am not saying that there isn't a need for regulations. All I am saying is that regulations create extra time, money, and work for businesses.
My argument to you is that it isn't as BLACK and WHITE as you think. First, if you want to understand the fundamentals of our economy you need to study the Federal Reserve (ie its creation in 1913, its purpose, history, etc). Second, you need to be careful on what regulations/lack of regulations you are blaming. Bad regulations (or regulations not enforced) can be to blame just as much as the lack of regulations.
@gideondavid30 The argument against a Federal Reserve is like trying to undo a Gordian knot; it isn't an economic argument, but rather, political. It's basically a Central Bank, which all nations have, and controls monetary policy. Giving monetary policy over to Congress is not an option. Now if we simply abolished the Fed, we'd be where Europe is, with 17 nations all trying to go their way, but somehow at the same time keep a Union. What do you suggest?
How do you explain a private bank created in secret in 1913, that has never been audited in its history, that lends money to the government with interest, and is in control of our printing press? Wouldn't you consider that at least suspicious?
Do you understand the power that central banks have? Do you know what fractional reserve banking is? Do you know what the business cycle is?
I am not insulting your intelligence I am just making a point.
Our monetary policy is not shaped by the free markets or a gold/siver standard anymore but by the anonymous few. These bankers create money out of thin air, are able to lower/raise interest rates at will, and have the power to bring an economy to its knees.
How can they create a recession/depression you ask. Simple, tighten lending standards and call back existing loans made. Currency deflates as a result of fractional reserve banking.
4) LET THE GOVERNMENT print its own money rather a private bank. That way, the government doesn't have to pay interest on the debt it creates. There should be enough money to faciliate trade and nothing more. A central, planned economy is dangerous, however, as those in charge can ruin it.
To get back to your argument - if you feel the need for regulations and government intervention let the STATES do that not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Small, localized governments govern best. Perhaps the BENEFIT of a regulation is better than its COST. Let each state decide what regulations work for them and how much free markets they want to have.
@gideondavid30 I do agree with this, but we have two separate convos here. Banks are by their nature, global. No American state can regulate a bank, because banks must comply with global regs, which are formulated by nation states. Bank of America cannot a regulation for Vermont and another for Texas. Now back to Schiff - his complaint is with federal regulations, specifically FINRA. There is no way out of this. Finance is global, not local.
You would be correct. The system is global now. This is a problem. Their will be PAIN on the road to recovery. There is no easy answer. Any major changes made will have political fallout.
What we need to do is
1) Bring back sovereignty to the states (free the states from the FED)
2) Bring back sovereignty to the US (free the US from the global regulators)
We are damned if we do damned if we don't. Their will be retaliation for the US seeking autonomy.
Now if I had a magic wand that can make things happen this is what I would do:
1) Let the free markets reign supreme. Let SUPPLY/DEMAND at a global scale regulate prices along with competition. Yes jobs will be lost here and there but it is unavoidable. Do not put up tariffs between nations. Capital and wealth will always flock to the nation that creates an environment for it.
@shmiggen ...It is a privately owned bank, with monopoly control over our money supply and that don't have to answer to Congress.If we simply print money to pay for welfare and bailouts we will be like Europe or worse.
@petiemac24 I don't think you meant monopoly control; there isn't a marketplace of money suppliers to monopolize. What you want to say but you have not said is that the Federal Reserve has become corrupt due to influence peddling. By buying shares in AIG and JPMorganChase, it implicates the government as an oligarchy. We have advantages over Europe, though. People have confidence in the greenback so they buy dollars since we are the reserve currency. Also, our debt to GDP is 60%.
@shmiggen ...We don't have an advantage over Europe. Our problems are much worse and the dollar is becoming worthless. With the dollar as the reserve currency, we are export our inflation.
Peter Schiff talks crap - Warren Buffett draws a salary of $100,000
afro84 1 month ago
Oh short sighted Peter always a laugh watching him. People are amazed at your flagrant disregard for rules & policies, the legal bills you complain of wouldn't exist if you would adhere to them
grantmac18 2 months ago
He has an answering machine instead of a receptionist because the government makes it too expensive to hire a human being?
Oh pleeeease. Even if the government didn't "make it too expensive" to hire a human being, he still wouldn't hire a receptionist because at the end of the day the answering machine is still cheaper than a human being. What a bullshitter
robgrauertvideo 3 months ago
@robgrauertvideo He's an absolute bullshitter 100%. The answering machine instead of a receptionist is a perfect example of technological unemployment.
MattSyTy 2 months ago
Still waitin' on that inflation apocalypse, Schiff.
Tick tock tick tock.
Eldeecue 3 months ago
@Eldeecue give it a decade.
evangrogers 3 months ago
NObama for 2012!
Phenylalanine22 4 months ago 2
@Phenylalanine22 NORomney 2012!
NOCain 2012!
NOPerry 2012!
NOBachman 2012!
evangrogers 3 months ago 2
@evangrogers Please don't tell me you still support Obama. He is probably the worst president we ever had. I mean honestly, what good has he done for this country. In fact he hasn't, he made things worse. We can't afford another 4 years of Obama. With the amount of damage he caused in 4 years, I can't imagine what he would do in another 4. Anyone is better than Obama at this point. I don't see how anyone could still support this clown.
Phenylalanine22 3 months ago
@Phenylalanine22 Lol, no, I do NOT want Obama. I just don't want any of the other fuckers I listed, either.
Ron Paul 2012.
evangrogers 3 months ago 3
I agree with Peter on most things but he interviewed Robert Kiyosaki a while ago and Robert told Peter he needed a new accountant for his tax problem. You can find the conversation on youtube.
Tasadaru 4 months ago
@Tasadaru I remember that interview. Peter Schiff was mainly talking about the problems of our system and how it should be While Kiyosaki was talking about how to play the game as it is. Schiff does have a problem of interrupting people.
alexamasan 3 months ago
Schiff has a major chip on his shoulder. Sounds like he should not be in business. If you can't follow the rules he should not have a business. Our country is formed on rules & regulations. You don't like it move to another country!
dorrielove 4 months ago
@dorrielove That's EXACTLY his point. Businesses are CHOOSING NOT TO GROW, and those that do are MOVING TO OTHER COUNTRIES.
Thyrdeye3000 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dorrielove your country has been transformed to such a country thats why the us is such a mess
JANOSNFHH 4 months ago
@dorrielove What kind of crap have you been eating for breakfast?! America was NOT based on rules and regulations. Learn some history before you make some retarded comment like that. Better yet, you might as well just do everyone a favor and keep your crap hole shut!
Phenylalanine22 4 months ago
@dorrielove lol or hire people outside the U.S. and stay here...
pronginator 4 months ago
Agreed guys... Governments are a disgrace!!! Same old everywhere. Australia is the same.
ltihema 4 months ago
The smart are following Peter right out of this country. The crash that Peter talks of will crush this country. The higher the standard of living the harder the fall will be. Prepare a retreat for yourself buy seeds and supplies for the worst case scenario. Biospharms has info to help. Prepare now go to
BIOSPHARMS
biospharms 4 months ago
I love Mike Huckkabee!!
rosewood223 4 months ago
wow, freakiin petey prolly one of the best fox news interviews, kudos mr huckabee!
TheAnthonywc 4 months ago
Did he say Warren Buffet is a hypocrite ?
meotaku2 5 months ago 2
Peter for treasury secretary under Ron Paul's administration.
gotitans999 5 months ago 2
i really dont like waren bufet!
dafyduck79 5 months ago
Peter 4 President.
azsmodai 5 months ago
@mrgeestacksalot I hear ya on that one my brother loud and clear it's pretty disgusting not much sanity coming from other comments a normal person should be repulsed
gatecomingdown 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FenrirLupus Why don't you suck on my left nut I don't buy Schiffs story anyway of why employers aren't hiring,
just because he got it right on some things doesn't mean his word is now gospel When Max Keiser appears on Fox which he won't then there might be an argument Huckabee is a disgusting pig any one who can stand to watch this filth is skewed at best.If he wasn't defending employers they wouldn't have him on.Peter Schiff has an answering machine instead of a secretary is disgraceful.
gatecomingdown 5 months ago
@FenrirLupus Why don't you suck on my left nut I don't buy Schiffs story anyway of why employers aren't hiring,
just because he got it right on some things doesn't mean his word is now gospel When Max Keiser appears on Fox which he won't then there might be an argument Huckabee is a disgusting pig any one who can stand to watch this filth is skewed at best.If he wasn't defending employers they wouldn't have him on.Peter Schiff has an answering machine instead of a secretary is disgraceful.
gatecomingdown 5 months ago
if this guy keeps talking the truth and he will be in deep shit with the SEC, etc. I hope he owns a shovel
YoureGoingDownFed 5 months ago
I make under $100K a yr and I pay about 25-30% in ALL taxes.. Taxes are my #1 monthly bill with food costs coming in second. My mortgage comes in third.. That is f'ed up...
ghendric 5 months ago
The US govt has got so big. it's run out of funds & swallowing itself.
nayanmalig 5 months ago
Trying to tax the rich more will only lead to the middle class being milked.
RussianWithSilver 5 months ago
@jif99 lol true. Huckster isn't so much pro-freedom as he is anti-Obama
engine2truck6 5 months ago
I lilke Peter Schiff a lot but this interview comes across as one of those infomercials -- you know, when the host interviews people but asks questions that directly promote the product. Huckabee isn't even listening and is just trying to use the interview to promote his republican anti-Obama ideas. Good to see Peter getting more press.
jif99 5 months ago
@inhocsignovinces312 Well they have to introduce the guest...and what his qualifications are. If he's saying he called the crash of 08 before it happened, then he has to show you where he wrote it. And if he's not able to hire anyone, he's going to need to state what his business is, and what he does. How could you have this interview and NOT mention these things?
WisdomThroughLogic 5 months ago
As always, Schiff is right about everything
drmcmoney 5 months ago 33
Google building 7
buffydog247 5 months ago
Wait until Obamacare-that idiots bill comes to fruition. ZERO GROWTH will happen when this awful bill hits the economy as a tsunami.
CRMChicago 5 months ago
Peter is 100% accurate on hiring. I tried it and it was too expensive. It's hard to grow if you can't hire but its extremely risky to hire .
CRMChicago 5 months ago 25
@shmiggen Are you willing to use force against non-violent people in order to achieve your political desires? I can understand that many people want this policy or that, but the key question is: are you willing to use violence in order to get your way?
slissone 5 months ago
Huckabee should get Ron Paul on.
joeybuttifucco 5 months ago
I am DONE with Dave Ramsey. Ramsey is a PUNK, and Peter Schiff is RIGHT.
sirjames45 5 months ago 2
The truth revealed: smiggmiester "cannot tolerate a rich man..." who wants to run his business without SHMIGG ' s permission. Free human beings do not need your permission.Collectivist shill.
engine2truck6 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Black THIS Out Moneybomb For Ron Paul -- October 19th
Inspired by the mainstream media's blatantly biased reporting of Ron Paul.
Pledge at BlackTHISOut (DOT) com
Please spread the word!
qwerty94376 5 months ago
That is the first time I have ever "liked" a Huckabee segment.
liberaustrian 5 months ago
schiff suck job
Javeriffic 5 months ago
@Javeriffic exactly my sentiments
gatecomingdown 5 months ago
@slickbtk not cop-out, keen observation on your part. Shmignoramus substitutes coercion and international government collusion "banking" for the legitimate BUSINESS of banking, which has been eradicated by government "regulation".
engine2truck6 5 months ago
"I wish I could be upgraded to the level of a serf" that's how bad this country has gotten. Thankfully there are people like Peter schiff fighting against it
a4finger 5 months ago
Those regulations btw were created by Europacific capital's competition.. Goldman Sachs
tbscrazy12 5 months ago
@gideondavid30 politicians are wiping their asses with YOU and the rest of us.
engine2truck6 5 months ago
He should have ripped Huckadick about Ron Paul.
tbscrazy12 5 months ago
@slickbtk : yes, shmiggen go "Baaaa"
engine2truck6 5 months ago
Schiff is getting mainstream!
yjfoo23 5 months ago
@yjfoo23 Hopefully it is more that mainstream is getting Schiffed.
daobagua 5 months ago
You are correct. The best thing that can happen is that the current mob rule be overthrown and America legalizes the Constitution
engine2truck6 5 months ago
The CONSTITUTION authorizes no banking Monopoly. Congress has only the permission to COIN money. States may only recognize gold & silver. Central banks KILL... econ
engine2truck6 5 months ago
The constitution is a piece of paper that politicans wipe their ass with. We are not longer a nation of laws but a nation of MOB RULE. People prefer their entitlements over an out of control government.
gideondavid30 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Take your money out of the Jewish Federal Reserve banks, get out of debt and STAY out of debt (cut the parasites off), leave the US if you can, refuse to fight in Zionist wars, turn off their propaganda news channels, and boycott Hollywood (watch for free on internet). Fuck Israe
TheJewRegulator 5 months ago
The only way banks can peddle toxic assets LEGALLY, is through government regulation.
engine2truck6 5 months ago
"Deregulation" did not cause the bubble. REGULATION causes malinvestment. Forcing banks to make subprime loans and guaranteeing the deal with tax money is REGULATION. Changing the rules is not "deregulation", it is re-arranging the controls, and that did cause the bubble to burst. Peter Schiff and other Austriain economists saw it coming. YouTube ""Peter Schiff was right".
engine2truck6 5 months ago
Mike Fuckabee is a Zionist schill and puppet
TheJewRegulator 5 months ago
Can I ask you a question? Are you ANTI JEW or just ANTI ZIONIST?
gideondavid30 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012!
johammbass 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*** Black THIS Out Moneybomb – October 19th ***
We're going to raise $6,000,000 and see if the media can black THAT out!
Pledge at BlackTHISOut[dot]com
Donate only through the official campaign's website: RonPaul2012[dot]com
Please spread the word!
eaglesfan48 5 months ago
Peter Schiff for Secretary of Treasury!
Ron Paul R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution 2012! -More than a Chance-
atexasembassador 5 months ago
huckabee is an empty, creepy, flesh puppet
mikekrentz 5 months ago 17
Huckabee seems to be a genuinely nice guy. Having said that, his conservativism is off big time.
gideondavid30 5 months ago
@mikekrentz Probably why he made such a popular presidential candidate.
Talodus 5 months ago
at least huckabee stays on topic and lets peter finish
TheBlitz1 5 months ago 23
@TheBlitz1 exactly, Peter is rarely given the chance to finish his point.
goneal86 5 months ago 2
@TheBlitz1 Unlike Bill Oreilly
MrEducateyourself101 5 months ago
Comment removed
bugsbugmenot 5 months ago
Schiff is too smart to go on this show.
innulja 5 months ago
i dont believe in huckabee but he is better than the show that palin tries to be in...
MrBigEnchilada 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the usa government needs to go
mathue7433 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the usa government needs to go
mathue7433 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the usa government needs to go
mathue7433 5 months ago
Huckabee, as a legislator, voted for the regulations that Schiff now suffers under. What a total HYPOCRITE.
irdial 5 months ago
@irdial Please explain your statement in more detail. Governors are part of the executive branch of state governments. They don't vote. How did Gov Huckabee vote for any legislation in Arkansas that affects Peter Schiff in Connecticut?
Snidely175 5 months ago
@Snidely175 Take a look at this: shaunconnell (dot) com (slash) huckabee-a-conservative Huckabee is a manic regulator, anti-homeschooler, big government statist republicrat. Look at _pLOC4krZI4 on YouTube. These are all facts. He if he has now realised the error of his ways, then all well and good, but as a part of the State he did the sort of economic damage that he now decries, and that is the truth.
irdial 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I generally don't mind Peter Schiff but the Fox logo and definitely Huckabee are enough to make me want to puke my guts out Schiff is doing the country a disservice by lending Huckabee and Fox enough credibility to appear on the show.
gatecomingdown 5 months ago
I generally don't mind Peter Schiff but the Fox logo and definitely Huckabee are enough to make me want to puke my guts out Schiff is doing the country a disservice by lending Huckabee and Fox enough credibility to appear on the show.
gatecomingdown 5 months ago
@gatecomingdown Whatever you think of Fox and Huckabee, they are getting Schiff's very important message out. It's the free market at work. People want to hear Schiff, so Fox gives them Schiff. Isn't it grand hearing Schiff instead of O'Reilly?
ArmednSafe 5 months ago
@ArmednSafe sorry but Schiff appearing offers Fox somebody to hide behind and even lends them credibility
O'Reilly sows them for who the filthy scum they are. Schiff needs to stop acting as a shield for Fox it's even more inexcusable that neither doeas he have an agent nor a contract.Your either part of the problem or part of the solution get off the fence I say to Schiff.
gatecomingdown 5 months ago
@gatecomingdown So just because someone disagrees with you on somethings means you should cease interacting with them completely? Peter's ideas are best served by getting them out to as many people as possible, when he has a disagreement with someone he voices it.
Talodus 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArmednSafe typos fixed sorry but Schiff appearing offers Fox somebody to hide behind and even lends them credibility of which they none ,O'Reilly shows them for the filthy scum they really are. Schiff needs to stop acting as a shield for Fox it's even more inexcusable that neither does he have an agent nor a contract.Your either part of the problem or part of the solution get off the fence I say to Schiff.
gatecomingdown 5 months ago
@ArmednSafe The message is that needs to get out is that Fox is not a source to lend credibility to by appearing on the
Huckabee show let alone lend credibility to Huckabee dirt bag Schiff needs to stop prostituting himself like a cheap whore
gatecomingdown 5 months ago
@gatecomingdown Well, that is a mature and objective way to look at it.
ArmednSafe 5 months ago
@ArmednSafe Employers sure don't have a problem hiring illegal aliens for slave wages I bet your buddy Schiff wouldn't have a problem hiring if he could strip a worker of all their rights as an employee I got your maturity and objectivity right here why don't you come and get it
gatecomingdown 5 months ago
@gatecomingdown You call them "slave" wages, but the employees and employers both agree willingly on the exchange. In what way is that "slavery"?
People don't have rights as employees. They have rights as individuals. They have a right to trade their labor how ever they want. If an employer and an employee come to an agreement, that is their right as individuals.
ArmednSafe 5 months ago
@ArmednSafe you lost me what your saying completely contradicts what Schiff is saying that employees exploit their rights at every given moment the rest of your schpeel would work well on an episode of Mister Rogers.
Technically street corner laborers are not literally slaves or are they? no grey area there for me the agreement for pay
is usually based on how far the employee is willing to be exploited minimum wage is also not technically slavery since you could probably live out of your car
gatecomingdown 5 months ago
@gatecomingdown I was talking about a free market situation. Yes, the government has created all these guarantees for employees to take advantage of. But, in a free market where property rights and contract rights are recognized, the only thing the employee would be guaranteed would be what is in their employment contract.
ArmednSafe 5 months ago
@gatecomingdown I would argue the opposite. Schiff being on FOX is great for those people who only watch FOX...they might never have heard about him otherwise.
WisdomThroughLogic 5 months ago
It's Atlas Shrugged come true.
god0fgod 5 months ago
he should add sales tax, property tax and all the fees to his % of income taken by the government. It would probably be closer to 60% stolen from us.
slugga06 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Financial Enemy of Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, & America - Jew
1. Goldman Sachs CEO, Lyold Blankfein - Jew
2. IMF Deputy CEO, John Lisky - Jew
3. Ex IMF CEO, Dominic Strauss - Jew
4. World Bank CEO, Robert Zoellick - Jew
5. Ex World Bank CEO, James Woolfesen - Jew
6.Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke - Jew
7. Ex Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan -Jew
8.Obama Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner -Jew
9.George Bush Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson -Jew
Stevie68000 5 months ago
So if American businesses do not cover their employees health care, who will? The employee? From their own savings? Schiff cannot have it both ways. He either pays his employees health coverage or he moves to another country. It's that simple. Of course, the other option is a public option. Again - you simply cannot have something for nothing. You either comply with American law and cover your employees health care or you simply try your luck under a foreign flag.
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen well his point is if he has to cover health care etc for his employees, it will mean he wont hire more people. Hes saying regulations cause him to stay as a smaller business. And the whole reason is for people to understand why unemployment is so high in ur country (highest since great depression), its because of regulation.
AntixSchiTTxreport 5 months ago
The corporate tax rate is too high. 20% would be reasonable, but 30 - 35% is the highest in the world, I believe. However, Schiff is wrong is certain specific ways. Firstly, all businessmen dislike regulations - this isn't news. I would love to pay my employees one dollar per hour, but I can't. Is it wrong that I cannot? I don't have the answer, so I will let you be the judge. But we have a tradition in America where employers pay for their employees health care. Is that necessary?
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen It is not government regulation that prevents employers from paying workers one dollar per hour its free market competition. If you tried to pay your employees one dollar per hour they would quit and work for a different employer willing to pay more. Regulations act as a tax on jobs, resulting in lower wages as money that would otherwise have been paid to employees is used to pay the costs of regulations instead.
SchiffReport 5 months ago
@SchiffReport You tell em peter!
weavermama 5 months ago
@shmiggen if you tried to pay your employees $1 and hour then no one would work for you. What is wrong is that employers cannot pay people what they would be willing to accept.
slugga06 5 months ago
@slugga06 Why is it wrong that employers cannot pay people what they would be willing to accept? By the way, I suspect he is upset not because of wages, but because of health care - which is more expensive than wages. But again, I cannot tell because he did not specify. But this is my point: American law stipulates that employers must pay for their employees' health coverage - a law which dates back to WW2. This is not a "new regulation" invented by Obama.
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen "Why is it wrong that employers cannot pay people what they would be willing to accept?" because it increases the price of the goods b/c the employer factors in wages as part of the cost to produce the goods. If both partys agree to a wage, then why should there be a problem? As for healthcare, just because the law was written during WW2 doesn't mean it was right. It could be anyone writing these bad laws, obama, bush, FDR, reagan, it doesnt matter. It is the law we have a problem with
slugga06 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shmiggen "Why is it wrong that employers cannot pay people what they would be willing to accept?" because it increases the price of the goods b/c the employer factors in wages as part of the cost to produce the goods. If both partys agree to a wage, then why should there be a problem? As for healthcare, just because the law was written during WW2 doesn't mean it was right. It could be anyone writing these bad laws, Obama, bush, FDR, reagan, it doesnt matter. It is the law we have a problem with
slugga06 5 months ago
Respond to this video...Schiff needs to come clear regarding the specifics of those regulations he dislikes. The American people are fed up with abstract thought. I do like Schiff - his advice regarding stocks and precious metals is accurate. But he is shifty on regulations. Anyone can say they dislike regulations. Who the fuck doesn't? I don't like regulations. Big deal. Let's hear Schiff say which specific regs he dislikes, then we can have a conversation.
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen Isn't that what he just did? He just explained numerous regulations and how they affect his business - he mentioned money laundering regulations from the Patriot Act, for example.
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza That isn't good enough; it's a cop-out. He said nothing of substance, and yes, I did go back and re-watch the video. He mentions his dislike of FINRA, and also his dislike of Warren Buffet, but nothing else. Go ahead, I challenge you - show me one specific regulation Schiff alludes to. I didn't hear any.
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen Everything he says has substance if you understand free-market economic theory. Minimum wage laws, tax burdens leading to health insurance, workers compensation, etc. He didn't list the particular regulation for which he was fined but obviously there is a regulation or he wouldn't have been fined. "how many reps you can have and how many you can hire, then a safe-harbor rule."
What is even your point? that there are no regulations preventing business and this is all made-up? LOL.
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
@shmiggen @shmiggen Everything he says has substance if you understand free-market economic theory. Minimum wage laws, tax burdens leading to health insurance, workers compensation, etc. He didn't list the regulation for which he was fined but obviously there is a regulation or he wouldn't have been fined. "how many reps you can have and how many you can hire, then a safe-harbor rule."
What is even your point? that there are no regulations preventing business and this is all made-up? LOL.
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza The point is I cannot tolerate a rich man who comes out and says he does not like regulations, when three years ago the financial world unraveled because of a lack of regulations. How irresponsible is that? It was in the spirit of deregulation that Glass-Steagall was repealed, an act that was designed to control wildcat speculation. And you say we need more deregulation, LOL. Minimum wage laws do nothing to discourage business. Worker's comp is insurance for those who CONT'D
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen It wasn't a lack of regulations - that is the disconnect. The problem is the Fed, not lack of regulations. Big business wants regulations to keep lower-level competitors from competing. Minimum wage laws require businesses to pay people more than what they are worth, reducing the amount of employees to reduce overhead.
Health insurance started in the 60s and 70s as taxes started to increase, it is not the American way. You make our point regarding why unemployment is high.
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza How do you support these assertions? It isn't enough to merely assert something. Anyone can do that, but when you support it with evidence, then we can talk. Yes, big business always tries to crush smaller competitors. Nothing can stop that. Minimum wage is so small that to suggest anyone is worth less is laughable. Anyone can afford seven dollars per hour. Health insurance started during world war 2, because no one on their own can afford private insurance. Cont'd...
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen Support what assertions? If I made assertions then you made assertions. We can stop big business from crushing smaller competitors by ending their regulations. No, its true, people really aren't worth the minimum wage - the problem isn't the wage it is the cost of living which is caused by inflation via the Federal Reserve. You're right about WWII - it was due to taxes and non-salary benefits and never ended cause taxes have continued to increase - 99% paid no income tax until WWII.
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
The other reason why health insurance began as part of an employee compensation package was because during World War 2 there was a labor shortage, and so the government created wage controls. But the main point is, if you do not want to offer health care as part of the overall employment package, then you will have to leave the USA. It's either that or we get a national health plan. You cannot have both. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen Exactly, which is why business is leaving and why we have economic trouble and high unemployment. so, you are getting the point - you agree with Schiff.
We can have neither. If employees aren't getting insurance, then health care costs will drop - we won't need "insurance". Insurance is really for emergency situations, not regular check-ups and prescription drugs.
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza Health care costs will drop...if we do not obtain health insurance. Uh, ok. I'm not following your logic, here. You think market competition will lead to lower health care costs? We already have market competition. This is the USA. We have a for-profit health care system. Where are these low costs of which you speak? You cannot afford your own individual plan over the age of 40, you will be literally creamed by the cost. You haven't a clue what you are talking about.
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen Yes, this is well-explained by economic theory. Health Insurance isn't really insurance. What happens is that prices are bid-up beyond what the market would allow. Consider laser eye surgery and breast implants - these are not generally covered by "insurance" and the prices have gone down and the methods have increased. This is what the market does - look at electronics or anything else. Over-time prices come down and quality goes up. Not with medical care - prices continually rise.
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
@shmiggen cont... This happens because the medical industry is highly regulated and due to subsidies going by the name of "Health Insurance". There is the flaw in your reasoning - you are assuming we have a free-market in health care. We have no such thing - at one time we did and doctors would make house-calls and very few people went without some kind of medical attention. You need to rethink some of your preliminary assumptions - I think you will find that they are poor ones.
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza How is the medical industry highly regulated? Do you mean malpractice insurance? Also, what do you mean by subsidies as health insurance? You lost me there, too. Yes, at one time doctors did make house calls, that was the old fee for service way that we had for a long time. Are you suggesting health insurance itself is bad? That we should simply pay in cash out of pocket, every man for himself? Is this what you are driving at? That will never happen...cont'd....
shmiggen 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CohibaSkeeza How is the medical industry highly regulated? Do you mean malpractice insurance? Also, what do you mean by subsidies as health insurance? You lost me there, too. Yes, at one time doctors did make house calls, that was the old fee for service way that we had for a long time. Are you suggesting health insurance itself is bad? That we should simply pay in cash out of pocket, every man for himself? Is this what you are driving at? That will never happen...cont'd....
shmiggen 5 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza because costs are so high no one man can go it alone. If employers do not wish to pay health insurance, that is fine, but they must also realize that the American people will inevitably demand a public option. This is happening already with Massachusetts, Vermont, Illinois, Pennsylvania and other states. There is no going back to paying doctors in cash for services rendered.
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen Prices are high because of health insurance, not the other way around - that is the point. We don't want any insurance except for serious emergency situations. Do you have home insurance for light bulb replacements, leaky faucets, broken windows? No, you have insurance for freak incidents. That way prices will plummet and medical options will increase while quality goes up - just like everything else in the marketplace. Healthcare is a good/service subject to market mechanisms.
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza What is your overall point and how does it relate to Peter Schiff? I agree that catastrophic injuries are expensive and this is why we purchase health insurance. But what was your point? I thought that was obvious. What does "prices are high because of health insurance" mean? You lost me again. Are you saying the person with a chronic illness, like say, leukemia, should pay in cash for their medical bills, out of pocket? I don't know what you mean, specifically.
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen We were discussing how regulations are driving businesses out of the country - destroying our jobs market. Then you mentioned that health care started to be provided because of high costs and I said that was wrong.
Right, the part you aren't seeing is how health insurance drives up health costs and reduces quality. Think about any good or service which is subsidized by either government or otherwise. Why is laser eye surgery going down in costs? Not subsidized by "health insurance".
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza If you want to learn about the history of health insurance in the USA, there is a wikipedia entry on it. I did not pull it out of my arse. During WW2, the nation leapt from a small fraction of people with health insurance to about 80%, and they obtained it as part of an employee package. Employers were not allowed to pay high wages because of government mandated wage controls due to a labor shortage.
How is health insurance a subsidy? This I do not comprehend. Cont'd...
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen I know how it started - I was the one who brought it up. High government taxes resulted in employers finding ways to give incentives that were not taxable. Exactly the point both Schiff and I are making.
I tried to explain how it works as a subsidy below. Think about if we were at an auction and everyone had around $100 give or take and then consider another scenario where everyone had around $500 - they bid on the same thing but in each scenario the selling price is different.
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
@shmiggen Could you imagine if all food, electronics, clothes, cars, etc. were purchased through some type of group coverage plan whether government wealth redistribution or quasi mandated through high sales tax? Everything would cost a fortune, there would be 3 kinds of cellphones, 3 kinds of cars, and they would suck because there would be no incentive to produce quality stuff since purchase of those limited goods would be guaranteed. There would be no pricing structure to lower prices.
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza this is not a proper analogy. Health insurance is...insurance. Cars, clothes and food are not insurance. It sounds like you are against the concept of insurance. Is this what you are driving at?
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen Yes it is, what we call health insurance is nothing like real insurance. We enroll in group programs which remove generally routine medical services from a typical market scenario where the prices of goods and services are established through a "bidding" process - pricing structure. Because the supply of these services is not bound to the potential of an individual to pay but is "bid-up" through the insurance company, the price rises far above the market value. cont...
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
@shmiggen ....the insurance company with an account filled with money does not have the same perception of the value of the services as the individual. $1000 may be a lot to a middle-class person but is not a lot to a company with millions of dollars - so, they don't see a problem with forking-out $1000 for stitches. The individual would, and in the absence of these "insurance" companies, the medical sector could not charge that amount for such a service - they would have to lower the price.
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza Yes, you have no argument from me here. But health insurance was never designed so that when a trifling matter such as stitches comes along, people have the means to pay - they do. Health insurance is designed so that when cancer comes along, you can pay. Is this not obvious? I still fail to see your point. Who cares about a bruised elbow or a tooth-ache? I am talking about cancer and chronic disease. This is the point of health insurance, so what are you talking about?
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen Exactly, you see my point. People are using insurance for routine check-ups, cause they think they have the flu, cause they broke their arm, cause they need pain meds, they have a cavity, they need stitches, they need glasses/contacts, etc. etc. etc. This drives up the costs of basic stuff that by this time should be extremely cheap. The higher cost stuff works the same way. MRIs, Chemo, etc. - also those things are highly regulated - also increases cost due to less competition.
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
@shmiggen Those minor things are what most people want insurance for. Obamacare/Etc. isn't about treating only people with serious conditions. But the cost of those serious conditions is brought up not only by "insurance" but regulations that hinder competition. You can only practice "medicine" if the government approves it - that is not free market. The medical industrial complex and insurance co. loves regulations cause they can then monopolize and charge ridiculous prices.
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza Wait a second...I am trying to be patient with you but you are going in circles. Again, I know what you are against, but I do not know what you are for. Are you saying the best way to pay for intensive care, cancer and chronic illness is in cash, out of pocket? Just wing it? Are you saying that the cost of cancer treatment would go down if there were no insurance, but rather, paid in cash? Please answer this simple question so that I know I am not talking to a crazy person.
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen We need to get government out of the business of regulating medicine and lower taxes drastically across the board so that subsidized health care through insurance is ended; leave insurance only to those people who want to risk paying. Costs will drop to within reason for most people. I want for as many individuals as possible to have the best health care possible, that is why I don't want government involved at all since they only increase costs and decrease quality despite their aims.
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza Ok, now I get it. You want to end Medicare and Medicaid. That's fine, I didn't know what you were driving at but now I do. I don't have an opinion on those programs, probably because I am not a participant. But I still don't know what you mean by "subsidized health care through insurance". Is that a specific reference to Medicare and Medicaid? I'm looking for specifics. When you say, "leave insurance only to those people who want to risk paying", do you mean ....Cont'd..
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen If health insurance was never intended for minor things, then why does my policy, and every health insurance policy I've ever had, cover minor things?
BPKesq 5 months ago
@BPKesq because the likelihood you will suffer a catastrophic illness is up for grabs. It's unknowable. So if you continue to pay premiums and you never get cancer, you are entitled to some kickbacks. Those kickbacks are a reduced rate for minor surgery. But ultimately, when people take out of a health insurance policy, they are attempting to protect themselves against a catastrophic illness.
shmiggen 5 months ago
@CohibaSkeeza Do you mean you want individuals to purchase individual insurance, and outlaw group insurance?
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen I don't want to outlaw anything. Health insurance acts as a subsidy by paying prices for medical services that would never be paid in the market. Ask yourself, why does everything except for health care go down in cost and increase in quality/availability over time?
In addition to eliminating all government health care, also eliminate the taxes that lead to the health insurance benefits by business during WWII, thus ending HI so that prices will drop and the lower class can afford it.
CohibaSkeeza 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shmiggen ...Your own words prove you are ignorant.
petiemac24 4 months ago
are injured on the job. Health insurance is employee sponsored because that has been the American way, in the absence of a national health care plan. If employers do not wish to provide their employees with health insurance, then they are free to relocate to another country. However, if they wish to do business in America, then they must abide by American law. They cannot have their cake and eat it, too.
shmiggen 5 months ago
It isn't dealing with abstract thoughts. Peter Schiff has common sense advice and is giving it. It is kinda hard to lay out evidence for his positions in a short interview.
The American people want results period. Yes they like a good message but ultimately it comes down to food in the belly.
Let me help you out with regulations...Peter Schiff does not like any regulations that hinder businesses. He is said that free markets do the job of regulating. The less the better.
gideondavid30 5 months ago
@gideondavid30 Wait a second - do you not remember 2008? I'm trying to be as reasonable as I can. Tell me how the crash of 2008 had nothing to do with deregulation. If you can do that, I will listen to you. Because I like to think I am reasonable. I understood the crash of 2008 (and 1929) was because of business and financial deregulation in conjunction with reckless banking. Deregulation leads to credit default swaps, doesn't it? Without regulation, banks peddle toxic waste.
shmiggen 5 months ago
I was not defending Peter Schiff's position. I am simply giving you his beliefs as far as I know them.
Now to your point: you ( a reasoanble person) would agree that regulations do create obstacles for businesses? I am not saying that there isn't a need for regulations. All I am saying is that regulations create extra time, money, and work for businesses.
gideondavid30 5 months ago
As far as 2008 and 1929.
My argument to you is that it isn't as BLACK and WHITE as you think. First, if you want to understand the fundamentals of our economy you need to study the Federal Reserve (ie its creation in 1913, its purpose, history, etc). Second, you need to be careful on what regulations/lack of regulations you are blaming. Bad regulations (or regulations not enforced) can be to blame just as much as the lack of regulations.
gideondavid30 5 months ago
@gideondavid30 The argument against a Federal Reserve is like trying to undo a Gordian knot; it isn't an economic argument, but rather, political. It's basically a Central Bank, which all nations have, and controls monetary policy. Giving monetary policy over to Congress is not an option. Now if we simply abolished the Fed, we'd be where Europe is, with 17 nations all trying to go their way, but somehow at the same time keep a Union. What do you suggest?
shmiggen 5 months ago
IT's much, much, much more than that.
How do you explain a private bank created in secret in 1913, that has never been audited in its history, that lends money to the government with interest, and is in control of our printing press? Wouldn't you consider that at least suspicious?
Do you understand the power that central banks have? Do you know what fractional reserve banking is? Do you know what the business cycle is?
I am not insulting your intelligence I am just making a point.
gideondavid30 5 months ago
Our monetary policy is not shaped by the free markets or a gold/siver standard anymore but by the anonymous few. These bankers create money out of thin air, are able to lower/raise interest rates at will, and have the power to bring an economy to its knees.
How can they create a recession/depression you ask. Simple, tighten lending standards and call back existing loans made. Currency deflates as a result of fractional reserve banking.
gideondavid30 5 months ago
@gideondavid30 Yes I do understand all that but my question to you is what do you suggest we do as an alternative? The Gold standard?
shmiggen 5 months ago
There are different proposals.
1) Go back to a gold standard
2) Go to a silver standard
3) Go to some other commodity
4) LET THE GOVERNMENT print its own money rather a private bank. That way, the government doesn't have to pay interest on the debt it creates. There should be enough money to faciliate trade and nothing more. A central, planned economy is dangerous, however, as those in charge can ruin it.
gideondavid30 5 months ago
To get back to your argument - if you feel the need for regulations and government intervention let the STATES do that not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Small, localized governments govern best. Perhaps the BENEFIT of a regulation is better than its COST. Let each state decide what regulations work for them and how much free markets they want to have.
gideondavid30 5 months ago
@gideondavid30 I do agree with this, but we have two separate convos here. Banks are by their nature, global. No American state can regulate a bank, because banks must comply with global regs, which are formulated by nation states. Bank of America cannot a regulation for Vermont and another for Texas. Now back to Schiff - his complaint is with federal regulations, specifically FINRA. There is no way out of this. Finance is global, not local.
shmiggen 5 months ago
You would be correct. The system is global now. This is a problem. Their will be PAIN on the road to recovery. There is no easy answer. Any major changes made will have political fallout.
What we need to do is
1) Bring back sovereignty to the states (free the states from the FED)
2) Bring back sovereignty to the US (free the US from the global regulators)
We are damned if we do damned if we don't. Their will be retaliation for the US seeking autonomy.
gideondavid30 5 months ago
Now if I had a magic wand that can make things happen this is what I would do:
1) Let the free markets reign supreme. Let SUPPLY/DEMAND at a global scale regulate prices along with competition. Yes jobs will be lost here and there but it is unavoidable. Do not put up tariffs between nations. Capital and wealth will always flock to the nation that creates an environment for it.
gideondavid30 5 months ago
@shmiggen too much ignorance in your statement to even address here
slickbtk 5 months ago
@slickbtk cop-out.
shmiggen 5 months ago
@shmiggen ...It is a privately owned bank, with monopoly control over our money supply and that don't have to answer to Congress.If we simply print money to pay for welfare and bailouts we will be like Europe or worse.
petiemac24 4 months ago
@petiemac24 I don't think you meant monopoly control; there isn't a marketplace of money suppliers to monopolize. What you want to say but you have not said is that the Federal Reserve has become corrupt due to influence peddling. By buying shares in AIG and JPMorganChase, it implicates the government as an oligarchy. We have advantages over Europe, though. People have confidence in the greenback so they buy dollars since we are the reserve currency. Also, our debt to GDP is 60%.
shmiggen 4 months ago
@shmiggen ...We don't have an advantage over Europe. Our problems are much worse and the dollar is becoming worthless. With the dollar as the reserve currency, we are export our inflation.
petiemac24 4 months ago
@petiemac24 You are correct and also, I was wrong about America's debt to GDP ratio. I believe it is 100% now.
shmiggen 4 months ago