Peter Schiff - Warren Buffett is Dead Wrong

[norvman]

Considering how much money Warren Buffet has made over the years... I will stick with his advise waaaaaaaay before I will even consider Schiff.... Wow... Schiff is not even intelligent enough to know he just made himself out to be an Idiot...

[brunonTube]

Buffet is socialist - still is counting for help from DC

[mojorhythm]

Peter doesn't understand how money is created. Private banks create credit money out of nothing; the Fed RESPONDS to this by increasing reserves or relaxing requirements. That's why the Fed is not increasing inflation. Aggregate inflation is extremely modest right not and the Fed has been printing like crazy.

[jimmyt3411]

@mojorhythm The Federal Reserve prints the money, not private banks, they only receive it. In the absence of the FED, the only way private banks can get credit is through depositors. The Federal Reserve buys U.S. treasuries from private banks in return the banks receive the newly created money from the FED, which will yield in a surplus of credit that will lower interest rates in banks and spur consumption. We want the FED to raise interest rates to encourage savings and investment.

[mojorhythm]

@jimmyt3411 You have it backwards. There is a ton of empirical evidence proving my point. First someone, like an entrepreneur, goes to a bank and asks for a loan. The bank agrees, and creates a deposit in her account, using a computer keyboard. Then AFTER that, the bank goes to the Fed and either asks them to print more money, or relax reserve requirements. The Fed, not wanting to risk a credit crunch, obliges.

[jimmyt3411]

@mojorhythm Exactly, but in your former comment you said that 'private banks create credit', when you've just said in your prior comment that 'the bank goes to the Fed and either asks them to print more money--' so the Fed prints the money. Where you have it wrong is that the banks do not have a final say in how much money is lent out by the Fed because the Fed has complete control over how much they are willing to lend, which has a major impact on interest rates and the entire economy.

[mojorhythm]

@jimmyt3411 Yes, the Fed prints money. But it is in RESPONSE to banks creating credit money out of thin air.

Actually, the banks DO have a say--they fund the Fed, and populate its board of directors. Moreover, the Fed is basically forced to follow the lead of the banks, because if it doesn't print money and/or relax reserve requirements in RESPONSE to the banks creating credit money, then there will be a credit crunch, which the Fed does not want to be responsible for.

[SuperMongoloids]

@mojorhythm you are entirely off base. It was the FED that came in 1913 and told the banks they no longer needed to hold 50% on reserve which was what banks at the time held. The FED then had the banks keep 25% on reserve which allowed the banks to lend 25% more of their deposits. This is what caused the roaring 20s and the ensuring great depression. Learn your history and why banks act as they do currently.

[mojorhythm]

@SuperMongoloids Private banks don't wait for deposits or fiat money before lending--they loan first, then worry about reserves later. In other words, there isn't an overall money supply that is independent of demand for money.

The Fed makes things worse by acquiescing to their excessive credit creation and enabling it. But it isn't the root of the problem.

[mojorhythm]

The problem is the deregulated financial system that gives banks carte blanche to issue mountainous levels of debt that fuels asset bubble speculation. The process of money creation is not the problem--it is how the credit is used. It should only be used to fund entrepreneurial activity and a minimal amount of consumption. Taking on debt is like having teeth pulled out. It should only be done when absolutely necessary.

[TheManiacalSatanist6]

@mojorhythm "The problem is the deregulated financial system"

You fucked yourself right there. As long as you have a central bank acting as the lender of last resort, and a fiat monetary system, you will NEVER, under any circumstances, have an unregulated financial system.

[mojorhythm]

@TheManiacalSatanist6 Regulation usually means some form of constraint. The Fed being a last resort rescuer is not a constraint. Furthermore, the banks themselves lead the money creation process; the Fed acts in accord with the activity of private banks, relaxing their reserve requirements and printing up extra reserves when needed. The Fed does not lord over the economy like a a malignant puppet-master, it IS THE PUPPET!

[TheManiacalSatanist6]

@mojorhythm "Regulation usually means some form of constraint."

You fucked yourself there again because you're taking that premise and not applying it everywhere it can be applied. Take the BP Oil Spill for instance. The market would've held them accountable for ALL of the damage done, but instead, we get a measly 20B out of BP. In the prior administration, Dick Cheney and his friends CAPPED, regulated, their liabilities in the event of an accident. Who does that constrain? Think about it.

[mojorhythm]

@TheManiacalSatanist6 Actually, no, the market would not have done so, since markets do not punish negative externalities. You need public institutions for that.

Moreover, even if I accept your premise, it is still a constraint. If the government stepped in and artificially lowered the punishment for corporate malfeasance, that would be a constraint on the third parties that have to bear the brunt of the damage inflicted. It stymies their ability to seek just and equitable compensation.

[TheManiacalSatanist6]

@mojorhythm "Actually, no, the market would not have done so, since markets do not punish negative externalities. You need public institutions for that."

You fucked yourself again. How many people do you think are going to invest in a company that can't operate safely without causing a major disaster? Look at all of the people who sold BP stock shortly after the disaster. If the market can't get direct compensation, it'll get it through other means.

[mojorhythm]

@TheManiacalSatanist6 Do you think most investors care that they spill oil and pollute the environment? It is all about the bottom line. You buy a stock if you expect the firm to make big profits in the future. As far as I can tell, BP still attracts many customers. They may have lost some after the spill, but they are still one of the biggest oil companies in the world.

By your logic, no-one would buy stuff from Koch Industries because they are rapacious destroyers of the environment.

[dubified89]

@mojorhythm The government gave BP a limit on the amount they could be fined in case of a spill. That is monopoly, not free market. In the free market BP could be held responsible for the total amount of damages. Yet you want the same agency that unfairly favors big businesses all the time and rigs the market for them to regulate them.

[dubified89]

@mojorhythm "Actually, no, the market would not have done so, since markets do not punish negative externalities. You need public institutions for that." That's nonsense Chomsky talk. Smaller businesses have to take responsibilities for externalities all the time. You people don't even think for yourselves or research things, you just repeat Chomsky quotes.

[mojorhythm]

@dubified89 What the hell does Noam Chomsky have to do with anything? Chomsky is not an economist.

[mojorhythm]

The notion that the money supply is controlled endogenously by the Fed entails that the amount of printed Fed notes in the economy should always exceed the total amount of credit money in the economy.

Yet the data unequivocally shows the opposite scenario: debt money as percentage of GDP is always larger than base money.

Why? Because we, the world, live in a credit economy--not a fiat money economy. Private banks control the money supply. The Fed just reacts to what they do.

[ddirtydave]

this is the hootest info chic of all!!!

[nalejbank]

I hate to tell you boys but Warren is no friend of freedom or the Constitution or even the "markets". If Warren is so smart then he agrees with Schiff for the longterm and is hedging his bets better then you will do because you will believe Buffet over Schiff. Schiff has been more correct in his predictions than Buffet but that doesn't mean that Buffet isn't capable of making money on his operations. Buffet may even be able to move the markets some in the shortrun to protect his assets. Beware!

[rengude]

ya.ya.ya....warren is a multi billionaire.peter?decide for urself.

[henrybird]

OK . This clown is smarter than one of the richest people in the world. Someone who got there by understanding finace. People like Schiff come and go. Who will know his name a few years from now??

[Romansteel13]

@henrybird

You apparently know nothing about Buffett.

Buffett is a vulture, a rat, a liberal fool.

The man just dropped $5 billion at 100,000 a share on Bank of America, at a 7% dilution rate.

The man is a coward, he only bets on sure things and rips failing companies apart like a vulture.

Being Rich doesn't mean you're smart.

That's a logical fallacy.

Look at Mayor Bloomberg, a billionaire dunce.

[UponInfinity]

Warren Buffet's companies were massively bailed out by Obama. He will anything to support them.

[henrybird]

@UponInfinity that's totally wrong! which companies???

[superhawkn]

Peter knows his stuff, buffet is great at what he does but he might even get slammed in future. Simpleness of Peter is the truth

[mpapile]

It is ok Peter. Keep your assets in cash and gold while Buffett has his assets in real things. Even if your hyperinflation dream happens, Buffett will be making money on his real assets. You can trade your lump of gold for a $100000 loaf of bread.

[MrSeriouslynot]

Also check out this youtube vid I found which put society in perspective:

Economic Collapse -- Why It Won't Be Stopped

(It is the video with Thomas Jefferson on it)

[tonytocanova]

Buffet = rick as f.... and Schiff = Used car salesman

[K20ej88]

@tonytocanova You = Can't spell three letter words.

[Ahuli28]

@K20ej88 Rich is a four letter word dumbass.

[K20ej88]

@Ahuli28 He misspelled the word "the", you fucking rube.

[Ahuli28]

@K20ej88 "The" isn't even in that sentence. Are you mentally retarded?

[melsanfran911]

Haha, This guy is even trying to outsmart Warren Buffet. Warrent Buffet is investing in AMERICA and make profit in the long run. While other wall street criminals making profit buy robbing the people of america in the past , right now and trying to do it again and again by defeating the government. Wake up middle class, most of the rich have impoverished you in the past 30 years, do not wait until the rich throws you out to the street to realize who is on your side

[durhamdf]

@melsanfran91 Exactly! Just goes to show what a joke Fox business news is. This guy who openly admits is shortselling U.S. treasuries and is heavily invested in comodities,so is obviously going to be preaching doomsday scenarios, and yet they have him on like once a week to rant about the end of the world and the collapse of the dollar anyways. He profits from our economy's failure and we let him create more uncertainty by scaring the old and stupid into selling U.S. treasuries and buying gold.

[dowshipwigga]

".... and Keynes theories worked fairly well in the 30s after the depression because, as I mentioned, we actuallu had factories and productive industries to spark up and get producing again.

We don't produce anymore.

So all of this stimulus money goes to more unnecessary spending.

The sad thing is that politicians continue to convince the weak minded that it's necessary or ________ will happen. Well let me tell you my friend... wait till you see what happens here in a few years..." DUMBS

[dowshipwigga]

" If you really had taken Keynesian economics you'd know that excercising expansionary policy, as Bush did, after a decade of unsustainable growth and demand pull inflation is the exact opposite of what Keynesian Economic theory dictates you do. It was neo classical morons, Austrian Schoolers included, that pushed for lower tax rates for the rich, less regulation on the mortgage and thrift institutions and when they all blow up in your face you blame Keyneisan economics?!" Smart guy

[quincee33]

Does Warren Buffett really have a lower tax rate than his employees? without accounting gimmicks, just straight up tax rates. i thought wealthier people had higher tax rates, maybe not much higher but higher nevertheless. i just find it hard to believe that warren's tax rate is lower.

[afro84]

Speak to Germany and then speak to Switzerland and ask each whether they would rather have an overvalued or undervalued currency...

[tomperanteau]

@Pepperdog12 You're not rich or hungry. If you were rich, you would not have made that remark. If you were rich, then you would not have made that remark, either.

You are just another moron that wants to see their response.

[durhamdf]

Warren Buffet has beaten the market for the last 3 decades. The man is a fucking genius! Peter Schittface on the other hand is just another loudmouth shortseller of U.S. treasuries who thinks he can scare the public into creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in which he will reap the rewards of a collapsed dollar, inflated commodity prices and falling earnings on U.S. treasuries.

[theeonionbagel]

@durhamdf how is printing money and spending the way we are spending not going to lead to those things whether or not people buy silver and gold?

[durhamdf]

@theeonionbagel lol what? was that english

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

I feel bad for you're financial investments.

At the very least, you were warned by him. *shrugs*

[durhamdf]

@canefan17 why don't you compare the assets of Warren buffet the financial gurur to Peter shittface the annoying half assed financier and tell me who you trust. Seriously little boy, run along because you clearly don;t have a fucking clue what you are talking about

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

Lol I love how the Buffett slurpers get so offended when you question his holy power.

Warren Buffett approves of Barack Obama. That's really all you need to know about Buffett's current senility.

[durhamdf]

@canefan17 Yup, buffet along with the vast majority of economists approve of Obama's handling of the economy. It is basic Keynesian economics, you spend on deficit in recession, and raise taxes/cut spending when the market is experiencing unsustainable growth to avoid bubbles and demand pull inflation. Schiff on the other hand is a proponent of the Austrian school of economics which he didn't study in any university (AE is only taught in a hand full of clown schools and city colleges).

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

John Maynard Keynes prime pumping theories only work if you have a producing economy to "shock" into action.

Today we are currently pumping the system with easy money to do what? Spend on more Chinese products?

You think this will solve our economic woes?

Not to mention... how many times do you dying breed keyesians have to be proven wrong before coming around?

Our current President has been quantitatively easing our arse further an further into oblivion.

I feel so bad for Keynesians

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

.... and Keynes theories worked fairly well in the 30s after the depression because, as I mentioned, we actuallu had factories and productive industries to spark up and get producing again.

We don't produce anymore.

So all of this stimulus money goes to more unnecessary spending.

The sad thing is that politicians continue to convince the weak minded that it's necessary or ________ will happen. Well let me tell you my friend... wait till you see what happens here in a few years....

[durhamdf]

@canefan17 And "dieing breed keynesians"? That must be why Keynesian economics is taught at every major university and the Austrian school rejects have their theories taught at a handful of clown colleges! HAHAH. And "shock" the market is exactly what expansionary policy is designed to do. You spend to drive up temporary demand causing firms to have to spend their record corporate treasury holdings on capital and hiring which raises demand again which again causes more investment by firms.

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

HAHA And we wonder why we have problems?

FWIW FSU is looking to start Austrian Economic classes.

But again you spend to drive up demand for Chinese products that in the longrun does absolutely nothing for our trade deficit or economy.

But anyways -- I'm out of here. Trying to reason with a Keynesian is a waste of my life.

[durhamdf]

@canefan17 HAHA, WOW! FSU (what a great example of academic exellence!) is considering TEACHING AE, not even making it their main curriculum! The way you jump from random irrelevant one liner talking points ("you spend to drive up demand for Chinese products that in the longrun does absolutely nothing for our trade deficit or economy") shows you are completely clueless. How does govt. spending money on a bridge in oklahoma create demand for chinese products and increase the trade deficit?!

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

I think the better question is how does building a bridge to nowhere in Oklahoma help make our economy more productive? Can't wait for this answer.

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

....when interest rates go sky high after QE3

LOL You have no idea what's coming

[durhamdf]

@canefan17 HAHAHAH "when interest rates go sky high after QE3" take one economics class little boy then come speak to me. Expansionary monetary policy (QE3) drives interest rates DOWN fucktard! Jesus christ it is like arguing with Trig Palin

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

I've studied both Keynesian and Austrian Economics for years. You discuss things like a teenager. Constantly laughing and cussing.

QE3 artificially drives interest rates down, correct. And what do you think happens when those rates adjust?

I bet I could pull up old Housing Bubble discussions and probably see you screaming from your mother's basement about how "secure" the housing market was and how it's a great time to buy.

[durhamdf]

@canefan17 they won't adjust untill the fed stops excercising expansionary monetary policy which won't hapen untill the economy turns around and we experience modern economic growth. At that point the interest rates will need to rise anyways just to prevent more bubble building and demand pull inflation. As for the housing bubble, it was the New Keynesian( A.KA. neoclassical fake keynesian) who have been deregulating the insurance and mortgage industries (CFMA, Glass Steagall Repeal) (contd)...

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

That's not entirely true. We could see rates go up fairly soon (regardless of Bernanke's next move)

You nailed it regarding Bush. I used to think Greenspan was fairly competent too. D'oh!

You conveniently left Fannie & Freddie out.

They have this idea that everyone deserves to own a home. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

dur, the backbone of keynesian economics is the pump priming theory. In my opinion, it only works if you have a producing economy in place to stimulate. We dont

[durhamdf]

@canefan17 (contd)... If you really had taken Keynesian economics you'd know that excercising expansionary policy, as Bush did, after a decade of unsustainable growth and demand pull inflation is the exact opposite of what Keynesian Economic theory dictates you do. It was neo classical morons, Austrian Schoolers included, that pushed for lower tax rates for the rich, less regulation on the mortgage and thrift institutions and when they all blow up in your face you blame Keyneisan economics?!

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

For the record - most of our economic woes today could have been averted had we remained on the Gold Standard.

Go

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

Also - Bush tax cuts weren't the problem. Bush spending, unnecessary wars, and his expansion on the size of government was the problem.

At the end of the day taxes are nothing more than generated revenue. Would you rather that be in the hands of the people (who move markets) or in the hands of gubby (who don't produce anything)

I choose the former.

[durhamdf]

@canefan17 You Republicans are living in fucking fairyland. I can't believe you sheep just swallow anything the GOP feeds you. Federal spending has been stuck at around 20-25% of GDP since World War 2. WE ARE IN A RECESSION RETARDS! WE HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM! Spending only slighlty less as a percentage of GDP under clinton we were able to produce a budget that would have given Bush a 300 billion dollar surplus if he hadn't cut taxes. Where do you think tax money goes kid? In govt. vaults? LOL

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

Federal spending is much closer to 40%. Get your facts straight.

We most certainly do NOT have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. Only an idiot, like yourself, would argue otherwise.

Clinton benefited from the tech bubble my friend. And his bigget accomplishment was giving in to Reps from '94-on.

You Dems think he's some economic genius. LOL

But there you go again debating like a child.

[durhamdf]

@canefan17 That was total government spending (local, state, and federal) buddy...learn how to read a graph. And anyways that isn't much above the last 50 year average either. Just face facts buddy you blindly buy into the retarded bullshit the GOP spews out without taking any effort to just check the numbers. Federal revenue is only 60% of its peak in 99', and our GDP has grown since then so yor tech bubble histerics bullshit meaningless. We have a revenue problem, you need to face facts.

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

Wrong. That is federal spending.

Why do you keep bringing up GOP? I'm not republican.

I'll say it again. Anyone who thinks we have a "revenue" problem and not a spending problem is brain dead.

It doesn't take graphs, numbers, or a political rocket scientist to see that government has grown out of control.

I used to own a small business (under Bush era). What Peter Schiff describes is true.

We wonder why we live in Big Corporate America - your government sh!ts on small business

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

Wrong. That is federal spending.

Why do you keep bringing up GOP? I'm not republican.

I'll say it again. Anyone who thinks we have a "revenue" problem and not a spending problem is brain dead.

It doesn't take graphs, numbers, or a political rocket scientist to see that government has grown out of control.

I used to own a small business (under Bush era). What Peter Schiff describes is true.

We wonder why we live in Big Corporate America - your government craps on small business

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

Wrong. That is federal spending.

Why do you keep bringing up GOP? I'm not republican.

I'll say it again. Anyone who thinks we have a "revenue" problem and not a spending problem is brain dead.

It doesn't take graphs, numbers, or a political rocket scientist to see that government has grown out of control.

I used to own a small business (under Bush era). What Peter Schiff describes is true.

We wonder why we live in Big Corporate America - your government hates small business

[durhamdf]

@canefan17 Jesus christ you're dumb, you see the bar at the bottom of the chart under category. You have it set to total (local, state, and federal) dumb shit. Just switch it to federal only and see what a moron you've been. Look at the federal revenues as a percentage of GDP, in 2000 it was 20%, now it is 14% and the decline perfectly coincides with the Bush tax cuts. And the Bush tax cuts led to the slowest decade of growth since WW2! With 35% under clinton businesses weren't held back!

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

Wrong. Bush spending lead to the decline in the economy.

LOL @ the idea of taxing our way out of this recession

Send the employers overseas. YAY go politics! go liberals! you win!

Bunch of academia airheads. Zero real life experience to boot.

Clinton benefited from the Tech bubble. Stop acting like his tax structure did anything.

Bush tax cuts generated more revenue for government than any other time in the last 30 years. Look it up and get your facts right.

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

Wrong. Bush spending lead to the decline in the economy.

LOL at the idea of taxing our way out of this recession

Send the employers overseas. YAY go politics! go liberals! you win!

Bunch of academia airheads. Zero real life experience to boot.

Clinton benefited from the Tech bubble. Stop acting like his tax structure did anything.

Bush tax cuts generated more revenue for government than any other time in the last 30 years. Look it up and get your facts right.

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

And there you go disussing things like a child again.

"People don't agree with me. Wahhh Wahhh Wahhh"

"I will cuss at them and call them names. Wahhh Wahhh Wahhh"

"Revenue problem not spending problem." LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

And there you go discussing things like a child again.

"People don't agree with me. Wahhh Wahhh Wahhh"

"I will curse at them and call them names. Wahhh Wahhh Wahhh"

"Revenue problem not spending problem." LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[durhamdf]

@canefan17 What's the matter buddy? Finally look up the numbers and realize what a moron you have been. When Bush proposed his tax cuts in 01 and 03 he said it would create growth and increase revenues. Instead it led to the slowest decade of growth since WW2 and cut revenues by 6% of GDP. Bush inherited a $300 B budget surplus for FY 2000 from clinton and left Obama a $1.2 Trillion dollar budget deficit for FY 2009. Only a retard would think a recession is a good time to balance the budget

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

It did increase government revenue. But if there's one thing I know about government it's this.... if you supply them with the money they will spend it.

Spending damaged Bush's economy. Not tax relief.

Bush inherited an unsustainable economy that unfortunately had to come back down to reality. No president wants to face the music of going through a recession (albeit a mild one) for 4 years.

Welcome to politics my friend. Throw out everything you know about economics.

[durhamdf]

@canefan17 Genius, GDP increased since 2000 so even with the tech bubble it stands to reason that revenues should have increased as well over this period. THEY DIDN'T! They declined by 6% as a percentage of GDP. The Bush tax cuts were proposed AFTER the tech bubble collapse fucktard, and they resulted in a slow recovery from a comparatively tiny recession and the slowest decade of growth in over 50 years. Obama inherited a massive financial crisis and you retards NOW want to cut spending?

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

I wanted to cut spending and shrink government during the Bush era as well.

I've always feared Big gubby/nanny state.

Unfortunately we're heading there. Hope you liberals are happy.

[canefan17]

@durhamdf

Obama inheriting a debt doesn't excuse him for running that debt up MORE.

We truly needed a fiscal conservative after Bush and instead we got a flaming, drunken sailor spending liberal with absolutely ZERO business training and/or experience.

Change and Hope baby! Love it

[durhamdf]

@canefan17 No but Obama inheriting a 1.2 Trillion dollar deficit DOES! If you subtract the budget shortfall that Obama was left he is only responsible for 1.4 Trillion of the Debt and Bush is responsible for over 7 Trillion. Funny how all you retards complain that Obama has no economic sense when the overwhleming majority of the economic community supports spending and tax cuts on deficit in a recession. Take ONE macroeconomics class and you will realize what a retard you are

[Andsormida01]

@durhamdf We have a spending problem. You simply can't sustain 2 fucking wars and one of the greatest periods of the expansion of government in years and than cut fucking taxes, all Bush did was cut revenue while increasing spending. It's a retarded strategy, and these massive tax cuts only work if you cut the overall spending which simply didn't do.

[durhamdf]

@Andsormida01 I agree, but if you look at the numbers, revenues have declined to 60% of their peak as a % of GDP. Without making up this gap you could cut every piece of discretionary spending and still not ballance the budget. Spending has gone up not because our govt. decided to, but because our entitlement spending is skyrocketing due to the hyperinflation of medical costs for medicare/medicaid and the baby boomers all retiring and using SS (and two undpaidfor wars with no tax hikes to pay)

[GodLiberty]

When you have billions of dollars a little bit of inflation doesn't mean anything to you.

[6gentex]

@GodLiberty At least there are a few of us that live in reality and see things the way they actually are

[aviomaster]

@GnomesAmok - FOOD prices raising in Europe thanks to Euro following dollar fall.

PAY stays the same(printing create unemployment) and prices raise. THIS will create CHAOS nothing else.

Bosnian and H. Km(convertible mark 1KM=1DM)  following Euro prices raise WHY people can not understand , cause They are printing KM's to follow Euro printing. This will make life HARD.

[GnomesAmok]

THE SHORT TERMS BENEFITS OF MINIMAL INFLATION DO OUTWEIGH NEGATIVES. WHAT A FUCKING MORON SCHIFF IS. You have to have growth before you can deal with inflation, we're in deflationary trend! "The time to put on the breaks has long past" what a fool this man is. What goes on between those eyes. "BY THE TIME OBAMA RUNS FOR RE-ELECTION WE WILL BE OVER 200 DOLLARS A BARRELL" WE WILL SEE, SCHIFF, WE WILL SEE. STILL WAITING ON THAT HYPER-INFLATION

[angelmtza]

@GnomesAmok Never lived 50-100% inflation have you? Many countries have passed through this process. Growth through inflation? HA! The only thing that increases is the prices which are hidden by crooked Govt. CPI not just in the US, ask Argentina in 2001, México in 1982 and 95, Russia in 94. In all those cases money printing preceded large decreases of GNP and high inflation. don't believe it? Compare purchasing power of money in the last 5 years. Short term benefits, what are you talking about?

[profitleads]

@GnomesAmok No they do not outweigh the negatives. Monetary inflation is no different than theft of spending power from those who currently hold dollars. All baseless fiat currencies in history have failed. All of them.

[aviomaster]

SWISS franc is doing great SWISS do not have huge debt , I GUESS Peter Shiff  is not telling nonsense.

[GnomesAmok]

@aviomaster

I guess you're a moron as that does not prove shit

[rbw19800]

I'll take Warren Buffett's advice any day.

[dustinseth1]

Do these people not realize that saying he lacks hope is not a counter-argument? It does not disprove any of Schiff's claims. I believe what THEY lack is critical thinking skills.

[GnomesAmok]

@dustinseth1

Critica thking, ha! Since when does cherry picking evidence and trying support your pre-supposition and intuition amount to critical thinking. Fucking plebian.

[Flashwar]

peter schiff is an alarmist

[tonyteb]

@Flashwar and right on the money thanks peter

[Flashwar]

@tonyteb his dad is in federal prison for tax fraud... guess who peter's mentor is?

[tonyteb]

@Flashwar i know all about his father irwin schiff so whats your point i support his father to

[88roro11]

also... the debt is idk about 95% of the gdp.... and inflation supersedes gdp growth... and jobs are going down.. unemployment is 22% inflation 10%...its a depression.. oh and fox is continues to make me wonder how they are considered news...

[88roro11]

i am weening my self off the dollar so when it happens.. my family will be ready... and well be laughing on the sidelines... prepare your self my friends!

[GnomesAmok]

@88roro11

You're a joke

[88roro11]

@GnomesAmok because im right?

[Rawego]

no signs of inflation? what is she on??? and who the hell trusts the fed hyped CPI or the GDP numbers anymore?????????

[fatalsteps101]

This is probably going to sound like a stupid question to ask but.....what does Buffet really know about owning debt anyway?

[Flashwar]

@fatalsteps101 it's pretty funny though! still, he would know since many of brk businesses operate with significant levels of outsider debt. like the utilities and railroads he owns.

[RobertMOdell]

Seems more and more that the US will suffer a combined collapse in the local money supply AT THE SAME TIME it also loses its value. Ouch!

[Elmore3141]

I'm amazed that while the Federal Reserve is deliberately expanding (inflating) the money supply, people will say they don't see any inflation.

[dillionlurue1975]

He is so right and as we move toward total collapse and the federal reserve threatens the congress, if you will look at history it hasn't changed, then you will see the game is the same just bigger numbers and it will be the people who are hurt while they are in their bunkers living well. When the collapse comes remember the fed and the elite, they put us here for their own greed.

[geglockn]

Peter predicts $200 oil by the time Obama is up for reelection. So far he is right on the money as it was $40 when Obama was elected and now half way into his term it is $105 and climbing.

[groam6666]

@UBSCARED Revenue does not equate to the creation of wealth. What are we producing? We are just making money more available, creating inflation, and we will continue on a consumer driven economy, which is not creating wealth. We might as well create a million gov jobs, and say we are going to collect tax from them. It would have the same effect.

Also, I am not quite sure what you mean. If the goal is to reduce unemployment is to collect tax, then isn't the purpose to reduce the deficit?

[theadventuregoddess]

Peter is truthful and realistic and that is Positive..... Negative is the liars in Gov't pretending things are getting better

[sfsTrader]

warren buffet is dead wrong, he only got rich cuz he was really lucky, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over........etc.

[BKSinAZ]

See how the male news anchor demonizes Peter Schiff by 1st, asking if he is running for senate. then 2nd, he asks Peter how will he get votes when he is so negative.

Typical television news.

[canefan17]

@BKSinAZ

It's ridiculous, right?

But then you ask the people "would you vote for Pete Schiff" and it's a resounding "F'in yes I would"

These talking heads... THEY are the pessimistic ones. Their job is based off of being the bearer of bad news.

[rudemood2011]

Damn Liz has got a fine set of headlights

[trexx32]

Buffet is not wrong hes a liar

[ironman2432]

@trexx32 your right, he was wrong when he predicted the severity of the 08 crunch in 06

i hate to say it, but Schiff is dead on

[JimmyDistant]

i am on a small pension plus social security. When this country collapses, i'll have lost a paupers wage compared to warren buffets billions. I cant believe he and other economists cant see it coming. you cant continue to borrow and borrow money, send all your manufacturing jobs overseas, and then bring in millions of immigrants legal and illegal looking for a better way of life. it is not a good recipe for a robust economy no matter which way you look at it. maybe warren is getting senile amen

[commonsense2008]

@JimmyDistant He probably knows what's coming, among so many others. Understand we are talking about the Global Elite, owning billions. They aren't exactly stupid, just sneaky. If they don't know what's coming, I wonder if someone can explain me why they are building underground bunkers all over the place. Check out Denver Airport.

[trueconservatie33]

@commonsense2008 warren buffett's berkshire hathaway probably got a big bailout, actually i believe i did. those ultra rich elite understands our banking system, the minority dont.

[stillclear]

@trueconservatie33

Banks and some investment banks received bailouts. Berkshire Hathaway did not, but he does own stock in banks that did receive bailouts. But, for what it is worth what large bank didn't get a bailout.

[turnerheights]

Warren Buffett is relying on California debt and federal debt for the high speed trains. His gas lines are planned to feed the energy plants in CA for the train from San Fran to Palmdale to Victorville to Las Vegas. The ridership isn't ever going to be there and the water required to cool the plants aren't there.

[7575047]

2:55-3:06 The most IMPORTANT FACT to all the inflation naysayers.

[7575047]

Listen to him sigh at 4:50 and 4:52...This is EXACTLY why I don't watch these financial news outlets. Americans want to be told positive BS? Wake up people! This is THE worst economic climate EVER and you want Capt. Sunshine??!! Had we had more people exercising fiscal restraint, holding their public officials accountable, sending the bankers to jail & dissolving the Fed we wouldn't probably be in this mess.

[7575047]

We are here because of the "escapism" mentality of Americans. No one wants to be REAL. We all want to live in fantasy land apparently. "Damn this reality. Tell me of fuzzy bunnies, unicorns, sugar and spice and make me feel GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD." So sad.

[Crosshair84]

What date did this air?

[poreddys]

@Crosshair84 Probably around November 16, 2010 since thats when Buffet wrote the WSJ Op-Ed thank you letter.

[stoneecold23]

@poreddys

you mean Nov 2009? Peter hadn't even officially announced his senate candidacy as of this video

[yjfoo23]

Liz is compromised. Save her Peter!