I think immediatly the question becomes "WHAT FUCKIN" PLANET HAVE YOU BEEN LIVIN" ON FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS ???" A unregulated Free Market Wall Street damn near burns the global economy down and little Petey Schiff try's to shift blame to the government....Jesus Christ on a cracker people if the 'Free Market' was your religion then I'm sorry. your God died September 18th. 2008..Now fuckin' deal with it..
@bellcord You're just the kind of citizen that the Fed loves. Govt can do no wrong even if they. Maybe do some homework before you piss your pants about the free market. The fed, which your precious govt allows to control the value of the seven dollars in your pocket, is a private bank established by JP Morgan and his wall street cronies, That's JP Morgan as in JP Morgan Chase which is probably where you have the other $3.50 saved. The banks have owned your govt ever since. Schiff for senate!
@jimberkt Hey Jim, did ya bring your lunch ?...cause you're fixin' to get taken to school....the Fed Reserve system is used by every Modern Industrial Country on Earth...It's chairmen is appointed by the President and approved by Congress as are a majority of it's Govenors...it's independant because if politicians totally ran it they'd increase the money supply every 4 years...read US history BEFORE we had FED..Panics ,bank runs and bank failures with depositors losing everything...
I hate it how Keynsian dude would take a dig at Schiff and then bald host would move on to something else without giving Schiff a chance to reply. Happened a few times.
This Barber fellow is an idiot and a fool. How does someone as utterly clueless as him even get on television? Where do all these government lovers come from? Our nation's founders would be repenting of their actions 200 years ago seeing how their descendants have completely forgotten ALL the lessons of history that they repeatedly warned us about!!!
It's as though the inmates have taken over the asylum.
Here is what needs to be done. The government needs to put a freeze on layoffs without good reason. Of coarse big business won't like it but they are what got us into this mess and therefore are null and void. I think people would much rather take a pay cut then loose their job anyways. What we need to do is create Jobs not stimulus packages. As long as people hunker down there is no chance of recovery. Force businesses to cut CEOs pensions and keep jobs. Drastic measures need to be taken.
Are you kidding? You think a company just decides to lay hundreds of people off for no good reason? The government needs to get out of the way and let these poorly managed companies die. You can't just wave a wand and create jobs. There has to be an incentive for companies to hire or for people to create new businesses. Right now, this administration is making it harder for new businesses. Companies are laying people off because the credit party is over and people are spending less money.
government cant freeze layoffs , they dont have the ability to create private sector jobs , infact it was that sort of carry on that made the deppression in the 1920s into the GREAT deppression
Either an economy is free or it is not free. The gov't causes our problems then blames the banks & big businesses. That housing bubble was caused by the Fed giving the banks cheap dollars (1% interest rates) & securing their loans. Otherwise the banks would not have been able to speculate & cause the damage they did. That's why we had that easy borrow & spend economy. If it was the banks money at risk, they would have ensured things like proper down payments, good credit, etc. Free markets work!
"The government needs to put a freeze on layoffs without good reason."
Business don't lay off people without good reason. They're expecting to gain from doing so. If they're wrong they will lose money without having the government second guess their decision.
The tech bubble and the housing bubble were inflated by the government. The government ignored and continues to ignore rampant fraud. It then bails out the fraudsters at the expense of sound businesses. Haven't they done enough harm?
Pay a wage that someone can survive on, when you pay shit wages to employee's they can not buy your products. 2/3's of the economy is based on consumption.
Zeldovich and Lordvigeous, anyone reading your convo would be able to decipher which is the self-important egotist (Zeldovich) and which is the guy who is legitimately trying to educate the public (Lordvigeous). LV don't even bother. Z is probably some shill for some special interest group. Why else would he support the Fed, an entity that Marc Faber, Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff and others have openly criticized? Fact is, the Fed Audit has overwhelming support and will happen. Period.
I thought I've seen all the assholes on these shows... then I'm introduced to this guy Ben Barber. I've never someone put so many words into Peter's mouth. That is just so disgraceful and so utterly stupid of Ben. I mean Jesus Christ, Peter says Uncle Sam should have never given the banks any bailout money, and somehow Ben is implying that Peter is in favor of propping up the banks! Talk about a conspicuous, partisan fuck!
The fact that cnn even have an episode "Can G-20 save the world?" is scary enough. Do they not understand what causes these things? Politics+business= corruption. We need more honest people in the world. Benjamin's little comment about Peter running for office is absolutly manipulative to try and favor himself. People who make those comments obviously feel they need to do that instead of base their argument off fact.
he was just playin' with the words. Barber knew what Peter meant. Every and anybody just wants to be heard at any cost. make it look like you're arguing different points. they were in agreement, but "i gotta be heard". it's like "con-fusion". what's the benefit of this? the vying for 15 minutes of fame?
Peter is like any other aspiring politician; the proof is in the pudding. Anyone who jumps into the cesspool tends to get covered in shit. I will believe he is teflon Pete, after he has spent a few years in the pool. After all, does he represent "Change We Can Believe In". I like Peter but all must pass the acid test and few make it. Hey, I did the math.
If I'm a salesman at electronics store and can convince customers to give money to my company without wanting a product I would indeed expect a lot of bonus in return. But of course only a government would be dumb enough to agree on such a deal.
I think there is a conspiracy against Peter Schiff.
First they had whole panels argue against him and he made them all look like fools. Now, it appears, they are placing him against people who arent as mainstream and are trying to make Peter Schiff look very extreme.
The world we think we know is just a sugar coated topping there is another world beneath it and honest people like Peter who would bring real change are delt with one way or another.
Is there a growth in strategic defaults on mortgages? People who could pay if they wanted? This activity extended across commercial loans will be the end.
I think Barber is way off because he pretends like the government actually does represent us but how is that possible with all the corporate bailouts? it's not helping my finances...
your right about the government not helping, but your taking it in the wrong direction. your finances are not whats important, whats important is what lays just below the surface.
these people want you to worry about your finances, because it distracts you from whats actually happening. and that is the complete upheaval of the worlds political systems to make way for a new world government.
I'm a Peter Schiff fan, I agree with 95% of what he says but Benjamin Barber is closer to the way I view things. Corporation needs to get out of Washington then Washington can get on to looking after "We the peoples" interest rather than corporations interest.
Schiff's argument is what we are consuming is mostly not US made - hence the trade deficit.
This is why easy lending or interest rates must resemble the real economic environment in the US - how else can we rebuild our production base through savings if we create incentives to borrow cheap and buy abroad?
The average working man needs to fight to get our freedom back. Take alook at income tax. It was first introduced in UK in 1790 to pay for the Napoleonic wars and in the USA to pay for the American Civil War. This is a form of stealing to support government workers.
Why do we need income tax when we do not have war?
Not sure why but this debate pissed me off more than most. Benjamin really gets under my skin, his arrogant ignorance is the ideal catalyst for my anger.
the statist is trying to say that we are represented in our gov't, haha. i would like see a pole of what precentage of people think they are represented. anyone with a brain know that special interest and corporatism are the only things our gov't represents
This idea that "we are the gov't" or that "the gov't is the people" is completely fallacious. It's now the gov't vs. the people. Which side are you on?
This toupe guy is ridiculous. Peter is of course correct. Banking is the most regulated industry in the world, and he wants to claim that we need more government regulation? It's already been proven to fail, just like this guy, FAIL!
Schiff kicked that dumb mother fucker's ass. The government is not some grand embodiment of the public interest. It IS a giant impersonal bureaucracy that no one should trust with anything important.
Having the government do nothing is no solution. The idea that letting 70% of private lending disappear will help the economy is nonsense. Who would take up the slack? Small and medium sized banks? No, not quickly, especially since there would be very little lending. Foreign banks? No. Many of them are in trouble too.
You don't solve the paradox of thrift by doing nothing. Look at the numbers. This recession is much worse than it need be. 2 trillion in mortgage losses over 3 years
This should be relatively easy to deal with, but the banks started faltering. If the Fed had targeted nominal GDP, all of this could have been prevented and we would have had a much milder downturn in real terms.
Or, we could have guaranteed that no systemically important financial firm would fail and imposed strict lending standards. For example, 20% down payments and no payments over 1/3 of monthly income. Raise capital requirements too.
Zeld: The idea that letting 70% of private lending disappear will help the economy is nonsense.
I think Schiff's argument is: the more 'real' savings that exists, the more investment in capital for future production will take place - why create an incentive for the consumer to spend or a bank to lend if they do not want to? If a consumer is being "forced" to buy X, is X really something that is demanded or will be demanded in the future (wasteful)?
IF you let 70% of lending disappear, that is more than twice as much as disappeared during the Great Depression. Unemployment could then be easily 40-50%, and we'd have a catastrophe on our hands that would make the Great Depression seem like the roaring 20s. Your savings would do you little good if you've lost your job. When prices decrease over time, spending rates decrease too, causing prices to lower further, spending rates to decrease, etc., such that the economic contraction dwarfs
Zeld, I don't doubt your unemployment numbers etc, w/ what Schiff is recommending - as Schiff would say we have to take the bad tasting medicine if we want to get better.
If our problem is over-consumption of products abroad on cheap credit, making credit even "more cheap" will not solve the problem of our under-production and over-consumption of products abroad. We need to produce or trade a "good for a good", not created credit for a good.
So, if you let the economy go then, how does it recover. The entire world economy would be much worse off than today, so trade couldn't save us. Foreign lending can't spur recovery. Half of the people are out of work, so they can't spend anything for business to produce, hence no capital investment either. Smaller banks couldn't get loans to expand, as they borrow short and lend long. What pulls us out? Tell me.
The mal-investments "sustained" by easy credit or not 'real' savings have to be cleansed. This will free up capital, resources and a work force overtime. It would be a slow process, but would build a sustainable economy based upon real demand and savings.
Artificially low interest rates, etc spurs "artificial" demand that cannot be sustained and transfers capital in the process into it - at the expense of the rest of the economy. (best i can explain)..
This all could have been prevented. The Fed has had a net contractionary monetary policy for the last two years. Money supply has not kept up with demand, which is why we have consumers and banks hoarding money, and businesses unwilling to invest.
Japan took the same approach and ended up with a lost decade. People talk about the monetary expansion and stimulus plans, but if they'd been enough Japan wouldn't have had 10 years of deflation.
How can the Fed have a net contractionary policy, when they have interest rates at 0%?
How can they have 0% interest while at the same time be pulling money out of the market? Doesn't that deplete available loan money, and therefore drive interest rates up?
And do you have any good sources covering Japans strategy, cause I don't know many details would like to know more
You fix the banking sector and get that expanded monetary base into the economy. Nationalize and sell the assets so we can get some money back, or try a debt-to-equity swap program.
And crowding out and interest rates are not an issue when there's deflation. Worse still, most of the expanded monetary base isn't being loaned out. So, private consumption and investment are way down, giving the government plenty of room to borrow and and expand the money supply if they can get banks lending.
idk where this deflation is you speak of still... monetary base expands, and you yell deflation. Prices are a lagging indicator of inflation, because they are the symptom, not the disease. Now, crowding out is always a factor, regardless of inflation or deflation. When the government borrows money over a private individual, the borrowed money is wasted or not used to it's highest potential. Government is a monopoly, and cannot run efficiently.
I guess you don't understand that when private sector consumption, lending, and borrowing are down,the government can fill the gap without crowding out. This is simple econ 101.
false. that's keyensianism 101. Once you scratch beneath the surface you realize that it's a silly notion. Where does the money the gov has come from? the people. and why would the economy reach a steady state at reduced capacity for indefinitely. makes no sense. go read "economics in one lesson" by henry hazlitt.
ajm no. The money can be borrowed now, at historically low interest rates,, to prevent further economic contraction and even raise GDP. The economic gains will more than pay for the increased debt. If the debt is just held nominally constant after beating deflation, the real debt decreases as a percentage of GDP/
The money supply can be increased to lower real wages and keep more people employed, lower the real value of debt, for those who loaned irresponsibly, and spur consumption/investmen
false again. the money isnt being borrowed for production so there are no economic gains. and Jesus deflation isn't a bad thing, how is it bad that prices fall? Also inflation is terrible. Why should prudent savers be punished so that foolish borrowers can be let off the hook. The foundation of an economy is savings and inflation destroys it.
No, the money is borrowed to spur consumption to correct for the exaggerated downturn due to the paradox of thrift and increased psychophysical risk aversion. This then can increase savings in the long run by allowing for more economic growth. What you don't seem to understand is that deflation destroys productivity, because people decrease their rate of purchases, causing prices to fall further,, further decreasing the rate of purchases, making prices fall further still. It's self-feeding.
false. again. First off you say "correcting for the exaggerated downturn", what about an exaggerated upturn (bubble) preceding the downturn that is normally caused by.... inflation! Deflation does not destroy productivity, not at all. It brings prices back to where they should be after in inflationary bubble.
No it doesn't. For every 40 cents we spend on stimulus, we get 60% net government revenue growth versus doing nothing, due to the real increase in GDP.
Also, how in the fuck does falling prices decrease the rate of purchases? That makes no sense. Paradox of thrift is bullshit. When people save more productivity in the long run increases due to the increased capital provided by savings. Savings is not hoarding, savings is the most important factor that increases production. You're basic understanding of economics is flawed. You should brain dump that Keynesian non-sense.
You're dead wrong again. In every deflationary economy I'm familiar with, the rate of purchases(consumption) goes down. This is because, when prices are expected to decrease, some purchases are delayed, because the costs will be lower in the near future. This is basic economics.
Sure the rate of consumption does drop as people prefer money to goods. But say it's some sort of self perpetuating death spiral is wrong. Do you indefinitely put off buying a TV or computer because you know in the future it's going to be cheaper and of higher quality? Are high-tech industries constantly on the verge of collapse because people are delaying purchases indefinitely? How about the converse with inflation? You can get hyperinflation and cause a currency to collapse.
This is just the sort of faulty logic that lets bad ideas like this flourish. High tech industries don't have to be on the verge of collapse if their sales and profits are still sufficient after the depressive effects of deflation. You seem to be in an either/or mentality. It's all a matter of how much - degrees.
And you know what? Electronic sales are way down right now, as are sales of just about everything, but inferior goods. So, you can continue to ignore the fact that when people
Poor argument. Explain how it's faulty logic or else your just basically calling me names. It's not deflation when prices drop due to an increase in productivity. You also failed to answer my simple question. NO, people do not indefinitely postpone purchases because they expect prices to fall. You can clearly see that with technology. I thought it was BASIC economics that when prices fall demand rises. Or is that too basic for you (maybe too complex).
Peter Schiff's views on economics are simplistic. It's about relative rates, not whether the monetary base or actual monetary supply increases or decreases.
Yes, this is the pure monetary solution. What really happens is that the Fed pays for the lending with expanded credit on negative interest rates, allowing banks to land more and strengthen their balance sheets. Then we can have monetary expansion. However, had we acted boldly in 2006 or 2007, none of this would be necessary and I favor the nationalization or debt-for-equity swaps mentioned above. Otherwise, shareholders escape disaster.
Well, in 2006-2007, the government could have announced that no systemically important institutions would be allowed to fail. Then, the Fed could have imposed lending standards for mortgages, credit car and auto loans, and student loans. For example, qualifying for a mortgage may requir ea 20% down payment and payments no greater than 1/3 of monthly income. Then raise capital requirements for the systemically important instutitions.
The bubble was fueled by a lack of lending standards, imposing lending standards would have popped the bubble anyway.
And announcing that no important institutions would be allowed to fail, oh yeah, thats not going to encourage the taking of massive risk
No more than 1/3 monthly income? Therefore I should have my wife quit her job, then take out a mortgage, and then have my wife seek employment again, oh yeah, that system won't be played by everyone
Apparently, you didn't understand my post. The new lending standards can't pop the bubble in a punctuated way, because of the guarantee against systemic failure. And this guarantee cannot cause lenders to go wild, because they have lending standards and new, higher capital and reserve requirements. If done properly, not a dollar need be actually spent. The guarantee itself will be sufficient.
Instead, the government waited until the system was melting down to take gold action. Pennywise...
What you're suggesting, would lead to out right nationalization, where banks become Public Utilities. So loans would be handed out, not by effective use. But as political favors.
Yeah, that won't massively waste our resources and dig us into a hole no one will escape from
Instead of dealing with it right before the bubble pops, lets deal with it before the bubble is created? How do we do this? by listening to what Schiff said in 2002-2005
Or, the government could have targeted nominal GDP, replacing real GDP growth with money supply increases so that the nominal rate remains constant. If the Fed made this a regular practice and did it competently,, then the expectations of economic actors would drive policies that would make the actual needed monetary expansion smaller, or completely unnecessary. Schiff doesn't even talk about expectations, which are critical in economics, especially when it comes to hyper-inflation.
So, if my friend comes up to me, and says, "hey man, can you spot me $20?"
Not only should I lend it to him, but I should pay for the privilege?
The thing I dont get is, something that is a mistake for an individual to do, if 300 million people do it, it suddenly becomes not only a good thing, but the only thing to do
if its a mistake for 1 person, a mistake for 20 people, why is it good if millions do it?
This is all irrelevant. The government needn't spend a dime if it's guarantees prevent any bank failures, along with new lending and capital requirements.
This is an economy, not a group of friends of yours. Sorry, but not every concept can be broken down into everyday examples.
You think significantly reducing the purchasing power of the dollar comes as free? sure the government doesnt spend a dime since it confiscates the wealth through massive inflation leaving the middle class and the poor holding the bag at the end of the day for all the bad debt the banks made.
Bubbles don't occur due to monetary policy. Monetary policy can either fuel them or choke them off. You're confusing cause and effect.
The cause of bubbles is confluent interests. People build bubbles, because they like them. Almost everyone benefits for years before the correction. CEOS with bonuses[; consumers with higher wages, more credit, more jobs; producers of goods and services with higher sales and profits, politicians who take credit, and stock and bondholders who watch the
If the market believes the government will back up the banks, which it always can, then investors and depositors will act accordingly and leave their money in the banks. Why should they flee if failure isn't an option. The increased reserve requirements, coupled with lower interest rates will allow banks to become less fragile, but help them maintain some of the profitability. It helps keep the money supply constant.
Taxpayers should be on the line, because they elected the politicians who allowed the system to be ruined, because 70% of all lending (bad lending) was funded by those same people who buy the bank stocks and bonds and deposit money in them, and because people without credit bought houses they couldn't afford. I guess you like to see voters and consumers as victims. Really, their just idiots now suffering the consequences of their own ignorance, assumptions, and general stupidity.
No, we don't agree. you are apparently operating on some misconceptions.
First, the subprime loans only accounted for 7% of all mortgages. For properly capitalized banks, this should have been easily manageable.
However, banks also issued too much credit to even the credit worthy, also giving them stated income loans with ARMs and in some cases, even negative amortization, and loan values as high as 120% that of home values, the latter of which were overstated, due to the bubble.
So. the government mandates did not cause the banks to fail and would have led to a very mild economic slowdown, but not even a recession, again, with well capitalized banks. The banks chose to be undercapitalized, however, such that even small losses made them insolvent. Some loan-to-reserve ratios were as high as 60:1.
And the government does not control the credit rating agencies. I guess you don't realize that Fitch, Moody's, and Standard and Poor's are owned by larger, private firms.
And most of those tax incentives had been around for 15-20 years or more before this crisis hit. You really should actually find out what you're talking about before making such ridiculous claims. You don't even understand basic finance if you think the credit rating agencies were government owned. LOL
Even given this ignorance, did it occur to you that if the government was involved in rating securities that they'd probably have one agency? lmao
Further, these private ratings agencies were paid by the creators of the mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps (and CDOs, etc.) for their agreement to rate them, Hence there were inherent conflicts of interest.
The banks basically bought AAA ratings for toxic waste.
By the way, this is an example of market failure. It does occur and if you'd take even macro or micro 101, you'd find out what this means.
Alright, my bad on the credit agencies. I have job, I have school, and yes, I have a life.
I can't research every single thing, sometimes, you hear something, and you have throw it out there to see if it sinks or swims.
So the credit agencies were making mistakes based on expectations in the market. But, when did they start rating the securities? it was well into the bubble. When did securities start to show up? 2002-2003?
Check average US house prices, the bubble started in 1998-99
The tax incentives have been around for awhile, but with housing only making mild gains, mostly pacing inflation, why would people speculate?
Once Subprime was mandated in 1998, housing started its ride up, this led to speculation, the tax incentives was Gov social engineering, with un-expected consequences, in this case, leading to MORE speculation, key word, MORE speculation, than would have been present without this incentive
I mean, FDIC, has been around for 70 years. But would you argue, that insuring every deposit, removes banks incentive to compete on soundness, and interest rates?
Instead, banks compete for high interest. How do you get high interest rates Mr. Macro 101?
High risk thats how.
Now, if FDIC was not there, would you argue, that there would be MORE, key word, MORE scrutiny, by more people, of their lending practices, than takes place today?
Am I saying, that no private actors did anything wrong, it was all the big bad Gov? No.
I am saying, that the incentive structure set up by the Gov, compelled private actors to do very irrational things
Remember, Subprime was mandated in 1998, housing started going up, and before the market leveled off at an equilibrium, interest rates were dropped to 1%
So the pendulum swung, and the speculators came out of the wood work, and everyone lost their mind. But again. Absent Gov, it wouldn't have
No, there wouldn't be. We had a free banking system from 1837 to 1862. It was called the Wildcat Banking era, or the fre banking era. This era was characterized by bank failures and financial crises much deeper than most in the 20th century. In fact, just after Andrew Jackson abolished the second American central bank, the economy slid into a deep depression.
I don't know what makes you think people are rational or even bright. Just look at who they vote for, among many other examples.
You go and explain to people that we need a FED because they are too stupid to manage their own affairs and we need Benevolent Overlords to tell us what to do
Say we need negative interest rates. A stupid person would never think of something so brilliant. Pay people, to spend your money. Because that makes perfect sense
I will explain to people, that we had a nation wide crisis, and there is only 1 group that affects every person and businesses on a national scale
Well, I shouldn't expect someone with so many erroneous "facts" to be capable of understanding economics. In fact, you and other Schiff supporter demonstrate that people are too stupid to manage the economy themselves. Most people haven't a clue about economics or even personal finance, though they stand to profit greatly from such understandings. They have no idea what our banking system is like, are blindly subject to cognitive biases, and support invasions(Iraq) without evidence of cause.
Of course, you don't seem to notice the logical inconsistencies of your ideas. You may favor getting rid of the Federal Reserve. Well, most people disagree with you, which is why we have the system we do. They elect the congress people who refuse to abolish this central bank.
So, if the people don't understand a perspective you think reasonable, then how can you think they'd be smart enough to make rational economic and financial decisions? Most people don't even understand credit cards.
They started speculating, because the ease with which mortgages could be obtained increased demand for housing more rapidly than the houses could be produced, leading to appreciation of home values and a desire by an increasing number to take advantage of easy loans for quick equity.
Have you even looked at the data given by the Fed about it's monetary base? Look it up at the St. Louis Fed's website or on mises(dot)org.
They have been expanding the monetary base, not contracting it. I don't even know what you mean by money supply has not kept up with demand. My dollar is buying less, not more. If what you said is true, my dollar should buy much more then it did 2 years ago, not less. Banks are hoarding more money, but that is because they perceive risk... not a bad thing.
Okay, so the banks receive bailout funds, 0% interest rates, yet keep most of the "new money" on deposit with the Fed and this is a good thing? lmao
My god, is this the improvement you're talking about wanting?
You are completely and utterly lost. The inflation rate is very, very low. In fact we have severe deflationary forces at work that the government is working hard to try to try to offset. Inflation is not the expansion of the monetary base or money supply.
well, never said giving the banks money was a good thing. I said they are seeing future risks in making further bad loans to people so they are cutting back and keeping more reserves, which is a good thing, absent that it is not their money to start with.
Banks aren't lending, because their balance sheets are bad. There are too many bad assets versus liabilities. You're only looking at marketplace risk.
I don't disagree with that. They have terrible balance sheets and they need to be left to die and be liquidated and let the rest of us benefit from the freed up assets of failed companies. Propping them up is hurting us all.
No offense, but you really embarrass yourself here. Tell me, does your dollar buy more now than at this time last year? lmao
Your dollar does buy much more than it did two years ago. lmao We had a collapse in almost every asset class last year, in cause you didn't notice. My god... People think they see inflation during the greatest deflationary period since the Great Depression.
No. The choices the gov't has made and continues to make have already wrecked the economy for many years. What Peter is recommending is that we peel back the gauze and expose the wound (which will be painful), but then allow the necessary surgery to take place so the healing process can begin.
That's great, except it doesn't work that way. He isn't describing any economy on this planet. It's unfortunate you've taken leave, but still send messages from back from your own end of the galaxy. I've addressed these issues. Before making teh same, stupid broad statements others have made here, read my previous replies. Otherwise, you'll be ignored.
Also, I'm tired of constantly being called a 'consumer' and 'taxpayer' by government boot lickers when they try to sound concerned about the 'individuals'. The only reason I can consume and gov't can take from me is due to the fact that I PRODUCE something first. What about protecting American producers by allowing the free market to work and lessening the burden of protecting the single largest consumer and destroyer of wealth, the govenment!!
EXACTLY! It's some kind of twisted message they perpetuate, isn't it? Constantly trying to ram it into everyone's heads that we're servants and dependent on the gov't.
ARRRRRGHHH!!!! Why do so many swallow the 'free market is to blame' line from people like Benjamin Barber? In this clip, Barber argues with Peter Schiff that gov't needs to protect consumers (5:50 mark) yet his book "Consumed" argues that consumerism is evil. So Barber actually believes that gov't needs to perpetuate consumerism by protecting consumers? It really sounds like Barber needs to reaccess his way of thinking. There seems to be some major inconsistencies.
I just hate how fast and rushed this guy was talking, it makes you want to say slow down. This is no doubt due to the fact that it's a commercial station that has to get ads aired on que. Also, when you have shows that are rushed like this you can begin to understand why at least some people are turned off when it comes to financial news. This is the drawback to commerical television, support public access, it may not be the best but at least it's not so rushed and you learn more.
i hate dumbasses who claim "we" are the govt. we didn't want to give any banks bailouts but the govt did it anyway. so under this moron's logic, since we are the govt, and we didn't want to bail out the banks, but the govt did it anyway, so we DID want to bailout the banks.
Benjamin Barber is Consumed by his don't blame the governement for our economic mess it was the banks and government is here to regulate and fix...unbelievable!
I like how this prototypical liberal assumes that because Schiff is opposed to what the government is doing, he must be in support of the big banks. Unfortunately such two dimensional, partisan thinking is the norm. He does not know how to respond to an anti-establishment argument like Peter's. It's also entertaining to hear him spout off the dogma of democracy--as if despite all evidence to the contrary, the government actually represents "the people" against private interests. what a laugh
I think immediatly the question becomes "WHAT FUCKIN" PLANET HAVE YOU BEEN LIVIN" ON FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS ???" A unregulated Free Market Wall Street damn near burns the global economy down and little Petey Schiff try's to shift blame to the government....Jesus Christ on a cracker people if the 'Free Market' was your religion then I'm sorry. your God died September 18th. 2008..Now fuckin' deal with it..
bellcord 1 year ago
@bellcord You're just the kind of citizen that the Fed loves. Govt can do no wrong even if they. Maybe do some homework before you piss your pants about the free market. The fed, which your precious govt allows to control the value of the seven dollars in your pocket, is a private bank established by JP Morgan and his wall street cronies, That's JP Morgan as in JP Morgan Chase which is probably where you have the other $3.50 saved. The banks have owned your govt ever since. Schiff for senate!
jimberkt 1 year ago
@jimberkt Hey Jim, did ya bring your lunch ?...cause you're fixin' to get taken to school....the Fed Reserve system is used by every Modern Industrial Country on Earth...It's chairmen is appointed by the President and approved by Congress as are a majority of it's Govenors...it's independant because if politicians totally ran it they'd increase the money supply every 4 years...read US history BEFORE we had FED..Panics ,bank runs and bank failures with depositors losing everything...
bellcord 1 year ago
Hi PhilDeCarolis
I have just been watching your video and I must admit it really is very good.
I really enjoyed watching it.
Already looking forward to more of the same in the future.
Cheers to your success.
Mark McCulloch
MarkMillionaireGuru 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For many times are tough. If you need to make some cash now here's how you can do it every time
GuaranteedWayToMakeMoney [dot] com
BrittPhillips 2 years ago
Government represents the people... hahahahaha... What a joke! :''D
bjorinn 2 years ago
I hate it how Keynsian dude would take a dig at Schiff and then bald host would move on to something else without giving Schiff a chance to reply. Happened a few times.
psychawareness 2 years ago
AIG is now a govt. utilities so they are overpaid Civil Servants
paul8kangas 2 years ago
Barber sounds a bleeding heart, not someone I want to hear financial advice from
takerdust 2 years ago
This Barber fellow is an idiot and a fool. How does someone as utterly clueless as him even get on television? Where do all these government lovers come from? Our nation's founders would be repenting of their actions 200 years ago seeing how their descendants have completely forgotten ALL the lessons of history that they repeatedly warned us about!!!
It's as though the inmates have taken over the asylum.
jgdesign 2 years ago
Here is what needs to be done. The government needs to put a freeze on layoffs without good reason. Of coarse big business won't like it but they are what got us into this mess and therefore are null and void. I think people would much rather take a pay cut then loose their job anyways. What we need to do is create Jobs not stimulus packages. As long as people hunker down there is no chance of recovery. Force businesses to cut CEOs pensions and keep jobs. Drastic measures need to be taken.
BlazinNSoul 2 years ago
Are you kidding? You think a company just decides to lay hundreds of people off for no good reason? The government needs to get out of the way and let these poorly managed companies die. You can't just wave a wand and create jobs. There has to be an incentive for companies to hire or for people to create new businesses. Right now, this administration is making it harder for new businesses. Companies are laying people off because the credit party is over and people are spending less money.
stopshoutingatme 2 years ago
government cant freeze layoffs , they dont have the ability to create private sector jobs , infact it was that sort of carry on that made the deppression in the 1920s into the GREAT deppression
danbuck333 2 years ago
Either an economy is free or it is not free. The gov't causes our problems then blames the banks & big businesses. That housing bubble was caused by the Fed giving the banks cheap dollars (1% interest rates) & securing their loans. Otherwise the banks would not have been able to speculate & cause the damage they did. That's why we had that easy borrow & spend economy. If it was the banks money at risk, they would have ensured things like proper down payments, good credit, etc. Free markets work!
moybutter 2 years ago 2
"The government needs to put a freeze on layoffs without good reason."
Business don't lay off people without good reason. They're expecting to gain from doing so. If they're wrong they will lose money without having the government second guess their decision.
The tech bubble and the housing bubble were inflated by the government. The government ignored and continues to ignore rampant fraud. It then bails out the fraudsters at the expense of sound businesses. Haven't they done enough harm?
soylentgreenb 2 years ago 2
Nice to watch Peter put that socialist dinosaur Barber in his place.
ilferrari 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Peter Schiff is a jew
dimaniak 2 years ago
He's a greater patriot then you'll ever be.
norfair18 2 years ago 2
Umm... patriot? LMAO
dimaniak 2 years ago
And Ali Velshi is Indian..........so
whateverujoke 2 years ago
really? I thought he is arab
dimaniak 2 years ago
Indian as all get out
whateverujoke 2 years ago
Go Peter Schiff! we need people like him in congress to put government babk in it's place.
thwurth 2 years ago 2
Pay a wage that someone can survive on, when you pay shit wages to employee's they can not buy your products. 2/3's of the economy is based on consumption.
70road 2 years ago
JP Morgan Chase =
$30 billion dolllar Fed Loan (Bear Stearns)
+
$25 Billion Dollars TARP Loan
Total = $55 billion Dollars.
FAIL. Jamie Dimon is a crook for dumping Bear Stearns risky assets on the FED's book know as Maiden Lane.
TheLiberalssuckdick 2 years ago
Zeldovich and Lordvigeous, anyone reading your convo would be able to decipher which is the self-important egotist (Zeldovich) and which is the guy who is legitimately trying to educate the public (Lordvigeous). LV don't even bother. Z is probably some shill for some special interest group. Why else would he support the Fed, an entity that Marc Faber, Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff and others have openly criticized? Fact is, the Fed Audit has overwhelming support and will happen. Period.
Hairylegs25 2 years ago 4
As if these immense problems can be illuminated, much less solved, at this breakneck speed. Commercial television is useless in this situation.
raythespian 2 years ago
it seems like fox and cnn switched places
greywolf4744 2 years ago
Benjamin "As if it's some foreign marsh-an bureaucracy" haha, that's exactly what it is!!!!
MF said: It's a mistake to associate the people with the govt. If the government increases taxes, it means the people have less money.
Ben, your founders would have been horrified.
Overtime123 2 years ago
Schiff wins again. Good work Peter!
tehPHILOSOPH3R 2 years ago
I thought I've seen all the assholes on these shows... then I'm introduced to this guy Ben Barber. I've never someone put so many words into Peter's mouth. That is just so disgraceful and so utterly stupid of Ben. I mean Jesus Christ, Peter says Uncle Sam should have never given the banks any bailout money, and somehow Ben is implying that Peter is in favor of propping up the banks! Talk about a conspicuous, partisan fuck!
Homer1583 2 years ago
What the fuck kind news is this? Cram sound bites for 6 min. Give me some fucking substance, this is just boring! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
savemyplaylist 2 years ago 2
The fact that cnn even have an episode "Can G-20 save the world?" is scary enough. Do they not understand what causes these things? Politics+business= corruption. We need more honest people in the world. Benjamin's little comment about Peter running for office is absolutly manipulative to try and favor himself. People who make those comments obviously feel they need to do that instead of base their argument off fact.
Zoklor 2 years ago
"this talk about the government, as if it's some foreign martian bureaucracy..."
Well put dumbass!
svenp 2 years ago
I hate that bald little fuck at CNN
mac9641 2 years ago 4
look this guy has the right idea, he just thinks that gov't is gonna make it all better. =(
dieyoung 2 years ago
People need to just give up on trying to argue with Schiff. It just makes them look ignorant.
chifylube 2 years ago
he was just playin' with the words. Barber knew what Peter meant. Every and anybody just wants to be heard at any cost. make it look like you're arguing different points. they were in agreement, but "i gotta be heard". it's like "con-fusion". what's the benefit of this? the vying for 15 minutes of fame?
dentistsugardusty 2 years ago
Peter is like any other aspiring politician; the proof is in the pudding. Anyone who jumps into the cesspool tends to get covered in shit. I will believe he is teflon Pete, after he has spent a few years in the pool. After all, does he represent "Change We Can Believe In". I like Peter but all must pass the acid test and few make it. Hey, I did the math.
rollsthepaul 2 years ago
If I'm a salesman at electronics store and can convince customers to give money to my company without wanting a product I would indeed expect a lot of bonus in return. But of course only a government would be dumb enough to agree on such a deal.
acetylslicylsyra 2 years ago
Acetylsalicylicacid must be your cousin!
rollsthepaul 2 years ago
I tried get swedish version of that as username but was too long :(
acetylslicylsyra 2 years ago
I think there is a conspiracy against Peter Schiff.
First they had whole panels argue against him and he made them all look like fools. Now, it appears, they are placing him against people who arent as mainstream and are trying to make Peter Schiff look very extreme.
The world we think we know is just a sugar coated topping there is another world beneath it and honest people like Peter who would bring real change are delt with one way or another.
RobbyRichards 2 years ago
Is there a growth in strategic defaults on mortgages? People who could pay if they wanted? This activity extended across commercial loans will be the end.
thetimman00 2 years ago
Barber is a dope.
The CNN guy is a dumb bunny.
Peter speaks the truth.
FGTBOGSAT 2 years ago
Peter Schiff speaks the truth! I love how he puts things. Benjamin Barber was/is just horrible.
Iamfatbrain 2 years ago
People still don't get it - the corporations ARE the government. That's why its called Corporatism and not Capitalism.
SIunits 2 years ago
So what Barber is saying is that the government represent the people, therefore they have the right to oppress it's citizens?
People have an obligation to kiss the governments ass no matter what?
Truthtolder 2 years ago
I think Barber is way off because he pretends like the government actually does represent us but how is that possible with all the corporate bailouts? it's not helping my finances...
SomeFunkyDude79 2 years ago
your right about the government not helping, but your taking it in the wrong direction. your finances are not whats important, whats important is what lays just below the surface.
these people want you to worry about your finances, because it distracts you from whats actually happening. and that is the complete upheaval of the worlds political systems to make way for a new world government.
xWallToWallChaos 2 years ago
Schiff looked like a dbag in this video. Barber owned him. Peter is looking like a politician rather than a realist.
k2dart 2 years ago
I'm a Peter Schiff fan, I agree with 95% of what he says but Benjamin Barber is closer to the way I view things. Corporation needs to get out of Washington then Washington can get on to looking after "We the peoples" interest rather than corporations interest.
Dean0000007 2 years ago
cnn sucks!!!
They will not let Mr.Schiff finish his views.
CNN YOU LIE also
acdc1954 2 years ago
Schiff's argument is what we are consuming is mostly not US made - hence the trade deficit.
This is why easy lending or interest rates must resemble the real economic environment in the US - how else can we rebuild our production base through savings if we create incentives to borrow cheap and buy abroad?
MovieTribute 2 years ago
Economic fundementals vs "blah blah blah"..
2uberu 2 years ago
The average working man needs to fight to get our freedom back. Take alook at income tax. It was first introduced in UK in 1790 to pay for the Napoleonic wars and in the USA to pay for the American Civil War. This is a form of stealing to support government workers.
Why do we need income tax when we do not have war?
dazzagazza6969 2 years ago
The guy has no idea about peter's stance on the issues - what a joke.
jwinter228 2 years ago
lol @ the socialist
libertopian 2 years ago
I love Peter's little laugh at 4:52
arnejess 2 years ago
So, it's obvious who of the two really is and wants to be part of the establishment. And it isn't mr. Schiff.
And 'the government' is a myth, right! LOL How clueless/evil can one be?
wreagfe 2 years ago
Benjamin Barber is an idiot.
hooverdog1957 2 years ago
Didn't Peter teach this Ali guy before? haha.. How many lessons is it going to take?
kbeck8989 2 years ago
Who gives a crap about the bonuses, lets talk about the trillions that have been stolen
wizardofozar 2 years ago
Not sure why but this debate pissed me off more than most. Benjamin really gets under my skin, his arrogant ignorance is the ideal catalyst for my anger.
audiohi 2 years ago
the statist is trying to say that we are represented in our gov't, haha. i would like see a pole of what precentage of people think they are represented. anyone with a brain know that special interest and corporatism are the only things our gov't represents
soundmoneyfan 2 years ago
This idea that "we are the gov't" or that "the gov't is the people" is completely fallacious. It's now the gov't vs. the people. Which side are you on?
escapethecollapse 2 years ago 2
This toupe guy is ridiculous. Peter is of course correct. Banking is the most regulated industry in the world, and he wants to claim that we need more government regulation? It's already been proven to fail, just like this guy, FAIL!
escapethecollapse 2 years ago
Just how stupid this dumb-ass is? Schiff roxx
SataiWarp 2 years ago 2
Schiff kicked that dumb mother fucker's ass. The government is not some grand embodiment of the public interest. It IS a giant impersonal bureaucracy that no one should trust with anything important.
discojoe3 2 years ago 3
Peter is the man
Muzzika01 2 years ago
wheres george?
banjojambo 2 years ago
the govt needs to do something which is to do nothing.
rosewood223 2 years ago 2
Is anyone even addressing the issue of private property rights anymore??
JessicaBelle81 2 years ago
Mainstream media is such utter crap. This is a circus. How can anyone expect to learn anything from information presented in this retarded format?
watcher2987 2 years ago
Peter's recommendations would wreck the economy for many years.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Obama's reactions will wreck the economy for a decade.
Voy2378 2 years ago
how
danbuck333 2 years ago
Read my comments below.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Its already wrecked. Peter has the solution that will get us out of this recession quicker.
gsn1hiroland 2 years ago
Having the government do nothing is no solution. The idea that letting 70% of private lending disappear will help the economy is nonsense. Who would take up the slack? Small and medium sized banks? No, not quickly, especially since there would be very little lending. Foreign banks? No. Many of them are in trouble too.
You don't solve the paradox of thrift by doing nothing. Look at the numbers. This recession is much worse than it need be. 2 trillion in mortgage losses over 3 years
Zeldovich 2 years ago
This should be relatively easy to deal with, but the banks started faltering. If the Fed had targeted nominal GDP, all of this could have been prevented and we would have had a much milder downturn in real terms.
Or, we could have guaranteed that no systemically important financial firm would fail and imposed strict lending standards. For example, 20% down payments and no payments over 1/3 of monthly income. Raise capital requirements too.
Do that, and we needn't spend a dime.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Zeld: The idea that letting 70% of private lending disappear will help the economy is nonsense.
I think Schiff's argument is: the more 'real' savings that exists, the more investment in capital for future production will take place - why create an incentive for the consumer to spend or a bank to lend if they do not want to? If a consumer is being "forced" to buy X, is X really something that is demanded or will be demanded in the future (wasteful)?
& $ supply has exceeded production
MovieTribute 2 years ago
IF you let 70% of lending disappear, that is more than twice as much as disappeared during the Great Depression. Unemployment could then be easily 40-50%, and we'd have a catastrophe on our hands that would make the Great Depression seem like the roaring 20s. Your savings would do you little good if you've lost your job. When prices decrease over time, spending rates decrease too, causing prices to lower further, spending rates to decrease, etc., such that the economic contraction dwarfs
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Zeld, I don't doubt your unemployment numbers etc, w/ what Schiff is recommending - as Schiff would say we have to take the bad tasting medicine if we want to get better.
If our problem is over-consumption of products abroad on cheap credit, making credit even "more cheap" will not solve the problem of our under-production and over-consumption of products abroad. We need to produce or trade a "good for a good", not created credit for a good.
MovieTribute 2 years ago
So, if you let the economy go then, how does it recover. The entire world economy would be much worse off than today, so trade couldn't save us. Foreign lending can't spur recovery. Half of the people are out of work, so they can't spend anything for business to produce, hence no capital investment either. Smaller banks couldn't get loans to expand, as they borrow short and lend long. What pulls us out? Tell me.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Real demand = sustainable growth.
The mal-investments "sustained" by easy credit or not 'real' savings have to be cleansed. This will free up capital, resources and a work force overtime. It would be a slow process, but would build a sustainable economy based upon real demand and savings.
Artificially low interest rates, etc spurs "artificial" demand that cannot be sustained and transfers capital in the process into it - at the expense of the rest of the economy. (best i can explain)..
MovieTribute 2 years ago
the levels of malinvestment during the boom.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
2-3 years of recession now compared to 10 years depression with likely a government change 2-5 years from now... you choose.
Bilakaifa 2 years ago
No Many more years than that.
This all could have been prevented. The Fed has had a net contractionary monetary policy for the last two years. Money supply has not kept up with demand, which is why we have consumers and banks hoarding money, and businesses unwilling to invest.
Japan took the same approach and ended up with a lost decade. People talk about the monetary expansion and stimulus plans, but if they'd been enough Japan wouldn't have had 10 years of deflation.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
How can the Fed have a net contractionary policy, when they have interest rates at 0%?
How can they have 0% interest while at the same time be pulling money out of the market? Doesn't that deplete available loan money, and therefore drive interest rates up?
And do you have any good sources covering Japans strategy, cause I don't know many details would like to know more
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
You fix the banking sector and get that expanded monetary base into the economy. Nationalize and sell the assets so we can get some money back, or try a debt-to-equity swap program.
And crowding out and interest rates are not an issue when there's deflation. Worse still, most of the expanded monetary base isn't being loaned out. So, private consumption and investment are way down, giving the government plenty of room to borrow and and expand the money supply if they can get banks lending.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
lawl.
idk where this deflation is you speak of still... monetary base expands, and you yell deflation. Prices are a lagging indicator of inflation, because they are the symptom, not the disease. Now, crowding out is always a factor, regardless of inflation or deflation. When the government borrows money over a private individual, the borrowed money is wasted or not used to it's highest potential. Government is a monopoly, and cannot run efficiently.
Bilakaifa 2 years ago
I guess you don't understand that when private sector consumption, lending, and borrowing are down,the government can fill the gap without crowding out. This is simple econ 101.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
false. that's keyensianism 101. Once you scratch beneath the surface you realize that it's a silly notion. Where does the money the gov has come from? the people. and why would the economy reach a steady state at reduced capacity for indefinitely. makes no sense. go read "economics in one lesson" by henry hazlitt.
ajnako12 2 years ago
ajm no. The money can be borrowed now, at historically low interest rates,, to prevent further economic contraction and even raise GDP. The economic gains will more than pay for the increased debt. If the debt is just held nominally constant after beating deflation, the real debt decreases as a percentage of GDP/
The money supply can be increased to lower real wages and keep more people employed, lower the real value of debt, for those who loaned irresponsibly, and spur consumption/investmen
Zeldovich 2 years ago
false again. the money isnt being borrowed for production so there are no economic gains. and Jesus deflation isn't a bad thing, how is it bad that prices fall? Also inflation is terrible. Why should prudent savers be punished so that foolish borrowers can be let off the hook. The foundation of an economy is savings and inflation destroys it.
ajnako12 2 years ago
No, the money is borrowed to spur consumption to correct for the exaggerated downturn due to the paradox of thrift and increased psychophysical risk aversion. This then can increase savings in the long run by allowing for more economic growth. What you don't seem to understand is that deflation destroys productivity, because people decrease their rate of purchases, causing prices to fall further,, further decreasing the rate of purchases, making prices fall further still. It's self-feeding.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
false. again. First off you say "correcting for the exaggerated downturn", what about an exaggerated upturn (bubble) preceding the downturn that is normally caused by.... inflation! Deflation does not destroy productivity, not at all. It brings prices back to where they should be after in inflationary bubble.
ajnako12 2 years ago
No it doesn't. For every 40 cents we spend on stimulus, we get 60% net government revenue growth versus doing nothing, due to the real increase in GDP.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Also, how in the fuck does falling prices decrease the rate of purchases? That makes no sense. Paradox of thrift is bullshit. When people save more productivity in the long run increases due to the increased capital provided by savings. Savings is not hoarding, savings is the most important factor that increases production. You're basic understanding of economics is flawed. You should brain dump that Keynesian non-sense.
ajnako12 2 years ago
You're dead wrong again. In every deflationary economy I'm familiar with, the rate of purchases(consumption) goes down. This is because, when prices are expected to decrease, some purchases are delayed, because the costs will be lower in the near future. This is basic economics.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Sure the rate of consumption does drop as people prefer money to goods. But say it's some sort of self perpetuating death spiral is wrong. Do you indefinitely put off buying a TV or computer because you know in the future it's going to be cheaper and of higher quality? Are high-tech industries constantly on the verge of collapse because people are delaying purchases indefinitely? How about the converse with inflation? You can get hyperinflation and cause a currency to collapse.
ajnako12 2 years ago
This is just the sort of faulty logic that lets bad ideas like this flourish. High tech industries don't have to be on the verge of collapse if their sales and profits are still sufficient after the depressive effects of deflation. You seem to be in an either/or mentality. It's all a matter of how much - degrees.
And you know what? Electronic sales are way down right now, as are sales of just about everything, but inferior goods. So, you can continue to ignore the fact that when people
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Poor argument. Explain how it's faulty logic or else your just basically calling me names. It's not deflation when prices drop due to an increase in productivity. You also failed to answer my simple question. NO, people do not indefinitely postpone purchases because they expect prices to fall. You can clearly see that with technology. I thought it was BASIC economics that when prices fall demand rises. Or is that too basic for you (maybe too complex).
ajnako12 2 years ago
When you say net contraction, you are referring to money being sold and traded? And not to the actual total right?
Cause the total, as far as I know, is being expanded
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
I'm referring to the rate of monetary expansion versus the demand for money.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Peter Schiff's views on economics are simplistic. It's about relative rates, not whether the monetary base or actual monetary supply increases or decreases.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
alright, well lets address interest rates set by the Fed, is 0% the correct interest rate?
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
Well, the effective Fed rate is less than zero, given the time value of money. So, the funds rate would need to be significantly more negative.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
so the way to fix the problem of over leverage, and borrowing money to pay for houses people can't afford, is to pay people to borrow money?
And, the other side of the coin, people should have to pay for the privileged of lending money to other people?
That people, should pay, for the privilege, of not consuming today?
That, the sacrifice, of non-consumption, should incur cost on a person?
To me, and maybe its because I'm so simple, but, that seems like a really weird solution
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
Yes, this is the pure monetary solution. What really happens is that the Fed pays for the lending with expanded credit on negative interest rates, allowing banks to land more and strengthen their balance sheets. Then we can have monetary expansion. However, had we acted boldly in 2006 or 2007, none of this would be necessary and I favor the nationalization or debt-for-equity swaps mentioned above. Otherwise, shareholders escape disaster.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
What bold action should have been taken in 2006-7?
And just to confirm, interest rates should be negative?
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
Well, in 2006-2007, the government could have announced that no systemically important institutions would be allowed to fail. Then, the Fed could have imposed lending standards for mortgages, credit car and auto loans, and student loans. For example, qualifying for a mortgage may requir ea 20% down payment and payments no greater than 1/3 of monthly income. Then raise capital requirements for the systemically important instutitions.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
The bubble was fueled by a lack of lending standards, imposing lending standards would have popped the bubble anyway.
And announcing that no important institutions would be allowed to fail, oh yeah, thats not going to encourage the taking of massive risk
No more than 1/3 monthly income? Therefore I should have my wife quit her job, then take out a mortgage, and then have my wife seek employment again, oh yeah, that system won't be played by everyone
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
Apparently, you didn't understand my post. The new lending standards can't pop the bubble in a punctuated way, because of the guarantee against systemic failure. And this guarantee cannot cause lenders to go wild, because they have lending standards and new, higher capital and reserve requirements. If done properly, not a dollar need be actually spent. The guarantee itself will be sufficient.
Instead, the government waited until the system was melting down to take gold action. Pennywise...
Zeldovich 2 years ago
What you're suggesting, would lead to out right nationalization, where banks become Public Utilities. So loans would be handed out, not by effective use. But as political favors.
Yeah, that won't massively waste our resources and dig us into a hole no one will escape from
Instead of dealing with it right before the bubble pops, lets deal with it before the bubble is created? How do we do this? by listening to what Schiff said in 2002-2005
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
Or, the government could have targeted nominal GDP, replacing real GDP growth with money supply increases so that the nominal rate remains constant. If the Fed made this a regular practice and did it competently,, then the expectations of economic actors would drive policies that would make the actual needed monetary expansion smaller, or completely unnecessary. Schiff doesn't even talk about expectations, which are critical in economics, especially when it comes to hyper-inflation.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
So, if my friend comes up to me, and says, "hey man, can you spot me $20?"
Not only should I lend it to him, but I should pay for the privilege?
The thing I dont get is, something that is a mistake for an individual to do, if 300 million people do it, it suddenly becomes not only a good thing, but the only thing to do
if its a mistake for 1 person, a mistake for 20 people, why is it good if millions do it?
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
This is all irrelevant. The government needn't spend a dime if it's guarantees prevent any bank failures, along with new lending and capital requirements.
This is an economy, not a group of friends of yours. Sorry, but not every concept can be broken down into everyday examples.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
You think significantly reducing the purchasing power of the dollar comes as free? sure the government doesnt spend a dime since it confiscates the wealth through massive inflation leaving the middle class and the poor holding the bag at the end of the day for all the bad debt the banks made.
asierra1492 2 years ago
Why do they need new lending requirements if they don't distort the supply of credit?
Why do they need capital requirements if banks are made to sink or swim?
They don't need these regulations, if the government does not presume to tell them;
what the supply of credit will be
what the interest rate will be
what percentage of loans need to be made to low income people
what assets/investments will be favored by the tax code, and which will be disadvantaged
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
Why is a guarantee needed if there is no chance of making good on it?
And if there is a chance of having to make good, then the Gov would have to spend a dime
And why should the taxpayer be on the line, for decisions they don't make?
Why should the taxpayer be on the line to insure deposits they haven't made?
Why should the Gov insure deposits, there by removing the incentive for people to check the lending practices of banks?
Why substitute 300 million regulators for a few thousand?
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
Bubbles don't occur due to monetary policy. Monetary policy can either fuel them or choke them off. You're confusing cause and effect.
The cause of bubbles is confluent interests. People build bubbles, because they like them. Almost everyone benefits for years before the correction. CEOS with bonuses[; consumers with higher wages, more credit, more jobs; producers of goods and services with higher sales and profits, politicians who take credit, and stock and bondholders who watch the
Zeldovich 2 years ago
values of their stocks and bonds skyrocket. Oh, homeowners like to see the values of their homes increase too.
See what listening to idiots gets you? It gets you away from real answers.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Expectations. Is it really that complicated?
If the market believes the government will back up the banks, which it always can, then investors and depositors will act accordingly and leave their money in the banks. Why should they flee if failure isn't an option. The increased reserve requirements, coupled with lower interest rates will allow banks to become less fragile, but help them maintain some of the profitability. It helps keep the money supply constant.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Taxpayers should be on the line, because they elected the politicians who allowed the system to be ruined, because 70% of all lending (bad lending) was funded by those same people who buy the bank stocks and bonds and deposit money in them, and because people without credit bought houses they couldn't afford. I guess you like to see voters and consumers as victims. Really, their just idiots now suffering the consequences of their own ignorance, assumptions, and general stupidity.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Well played, sir. Well played.
TheWill2Power 2 years ago
So we agree
Gov mandated subprime
increased demand started housing prices up and attracted speculators
Gov tax incentives were preferential to housing Vs other assets. Which drew abnormally high amount of speculators
Fed kept low interest rates and easy credit to fuel the bubble
Gov run Credit Rating Agencies gave artificially high ratings to securities to keep credit flowing into the Gov run Social Engineering Scheme
So we agree, the Gov and the Fed caused the problem
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
No, we don't agree. you are apparently operating on some misconceptions.
First, the subprime loans only accounted for 7% of all mortgages. For properly capitalized banks, this should have been easily manageable.
However, banks also issued too much credit to even the credit worthy, also giving them stated income loans with ARMs and in some cases, even negative amortization, and loan values as high as 120% that of home values, the latter of which were overstated, due to the bubble.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
So. the government mandates did not cause the banks to fail and would have led to a very mild economic slowdown, but not even a recession, again, with well capitalized banks. The banks chose to be undercapitalized, however, such that even small losses made them insolvent. Some loan-to-reserve ratios were as high as 60:1.
And the government does not control the credit rating agencies. I guess you don't realize that Fitch, Moody's, and Standard and Poor's are owned by larger, private firms.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
And most of those tax incentives had been around for 15-20 years or more before this crisis hit. You really should actually find out what you're talking about before making such ridiculous claims. You don't even understand basic finance if you think the credit rating agencies were government owned. LOL
Even given this ignorance, did it occur to you that if the government was involved in rating securities that they'd probably have one agency? lmao
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Further, these private ratings agencies were paid by the creators of the mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps (and CDOs, etc.) for their agreement to rate them, Hence there were inherent conflicts of interest.
The banks basically bought AAA ratings for toxic waste.
By the way, this is an example of market failure. It does occur and if you'd take even macro or micro 101, you'd find out what this means.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Alright, my bad on the credit agencies. I have job, I have school, and yes, I have a life.
I can't research every single thing, sometimes, you hear something, and you have throw it out there to see if it sinks or swims.
So the credit agencies were making mistakes based on expectations in the market. But, when did they start rating the securities? it was well into the bubble. When did securities start to show up? 2002-2003?
Check average US house prices, the bubble started in 1998-99
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
The tax incentives have been around for awhile, but with housing only making mild gains, mostly pacing inflation, why would people speculate?
Once Subprime was mandated in 1998, housing started its ride up, this led to speculation, the tax incentives was Gov social engineering, with un-expected consequences, in this case, leading to MORE speculation, key word, MORE speculation, than would have been present without this incentive
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
I mean, FDIC, has been around for 70 years. But would you argue, that insuring every deposit, removes banks incentive to compete on soundness, and interest rates?
Instead, banks compete for high interest. How do you get high interest rates Mr. Macro 101?
High risk thats how.
Now, if FDIC was not there, would you argue, that there would be MORE, key word, MORE scrutiny, by more people, of their lending practices, than takes place today?
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
Do you see where I am building this? So many free market mechanisms have been removed at this point, that you have to do Gov regulation.
But, 300 million Americans can't be bribed. 40 regulators can be. Businesses can buy co-operation of other businesses
When the people aren't looking, when the people whose money is on the line, don't have any skin in the game, bad things happen
And who told the People, "We will handle it! You don't need to worry, be happy."
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
Am I saying, that no private actors did anything wrong, it was all the big bad Gov? No.
I am saying, that the incentive structure set up by the Gov, compelled private actors to do very irrational things
Remember, Subprime was mandated in 1998, housing started going up, and before the market leveled off at an equilibrium, interest rates were dropped to 1%
So the pendulum swung, and the speculators came out of the wood work, and everyone lost their mind. But again. Absent Gov, it wouldn't have
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
No, there wouldn't be. We had a free banking system from 1837 to 1862. It was called the Wildcat Banking era, or the fre banking era. This era was characterized by bank failures and financial crises much deeper than most in the 20th century. In fact, just after Andrew Jackson abolished the second American central bank, the economy slid into a deep depression.
I don't know what makes you think people are rational or even bright. Just look at who they vote for, among many other examples.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Anything you want to tell me about that depression, I'll listen to, but I I'm going to cut off anything else.
I think this is a true difference of opinion. You think a negative interest rate, is something that makes sense, I disagree.
And that belief, tells me everything I need to know. This is not a lack of information on either side, we just see the world different
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
This is a war of ideas
You go and explain to people that we need a FED because they are too stupid to manage their own affairs and we need Benevolent Overlords to tell us what to do
Say we need negative interest rates. A stupid person would never think of something so brilliant. Pay people, to spend your money. Because that makes perfect sense
I will explain to people, that we had a nation wide crisis, and there is only 1 group that affects every person and businesses on a national scale
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
Well, I shouldn't expect someone with so many erroneous "facts" to be capable of understanding economics. In fact, you and other Schiff supporter demonstrate that people are too stupid to manage the economy themselves. Most people haven't a clue about economics or even personal finance, though they stand to profit greatly from such understandings. They have no idea what our banking system is like, are blindly subject to cognitive biases, and support invasions(Iraq) without evidence of cause.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Of course, you don't seem to notice the logical inconsistencies of your ideas. You may favor getting rid of the Federal Reserve. Well, most people disagree with you, which is why we have the system we do. They elect the congress people who refuse to abolish this central bank.
So, if the people don't understand a perspective you think reasonable, then how can you think they'd be smart enough to make rational economic and financial decisions? Most people don't even understand credit cards.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
They started speculating, because the ease with which mortgages could be obtained increased demand for housing more rapidly than the houses could be produced, leading to appreciation of home values and a desire by an increasing number to take advantage of easy loans for quick equity.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Well, mortgage-backed securities have been around for decades, but used to only be created by the Fannie and Freddie.
Moody's, Fitch, and S&P try to rate all publically traded debt.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Have you even looked at the data given by the Fed about it's monetary base? Look it up at the St. Louis Fed's website or on mises(dot)org.
They have been expanding the monetary base, not contracting it. I don't even know what you mean by money supply has not kept up with demand. My dollar is buying less, not more. If what you said is true, my dollar should buy much more then it did 2 years ago, not less. Banks are hoarding more money, but that is because they perceive risk... not a bad thing.
Bilakaifa 2 years ago
Okay, so the banks receive bailout funds, 0% interest rates, yet keep most of the "new money" on deposit with the Fed and this is a good thing? lmao
My god, is this the improvement you're talking about wanting?
You are completely and utterly lost. The inflation rate is very, very low. In fact we have severe deflationary forces at work that the government is working hard to try to try to offset. Inflation is not the expansion of the monetary base or money supply.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
well, never said giving the banks money was a good thing. I said they are seeing future risks in making further bad loans to people so they are cutting back and keeping more reserves, which is a good thing, absent that it is not their money to start with.
Bilakaifa 2 years ago
Banks aren't lending, because their balance sheets are bad. There are too many bad assets versus liabilities. You're only looking at marketplace risk.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
I don't disagree with that. They have terrible balance sheets and they need to be left to die and be liquidated and let the rest of us benefit from the freed up assets of failed companies. Propping them up is hurting us all.
Bilakaifa 2 years ago
No offense, but you really embarrass yourself here. Tell me, does your dollar buy more now than at this time last year? lmao
Your dollar does buy much more than it did two years ago. lmao We had a collapse in almost every asset class last year, in cause you didn't notice. My god... People think they see inflation during the greatest deflationary period since the Great Depression.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
No. The choices the gov't has made and continues to make have already wrecked the economy for many years. What Peter is recommending is that we peel back the gauze and expose the wound (which will be painful), but then allow the necessary surgery to take place so the healing process can begin.
byrdinflight 2 years ago
That's great, except it doesn't work that way. He isn't describing any economy on this planet. It's unfortunate you've taken leave, but still send messages from back from your own end of the galaxy. I've addressed these issues. Before making teh same, stupid broad statements others have made here, read my previous replies. Otherwise, you'll be ignored.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Benjamin is surprisingly ignorant. Just proves anyone and their mom can write a book these days.
audiohi 2 years ago 3
I want to hit that Obama idi0t.
Voy2378 2 years ago
Cannot believe this Barber guy still thinks government can solve it.
dlmaniac 2 years ago 4
I love how peter stays all cool with them jumping down his throat.
PureAdrenaline97 2 years ago 2
Also, I'm tired of constantly being called a 'consumer' and 'taxpayer' by government boot lickers when they try to sound concerned about the 'individuals'. The only reason I can consume and gov't can take from me is due to the fact that I PRODUCE something first. What about protecting American producers by allowing the free market to work and lessening the burden of protecting the single largest consumer and destroyer of wealth, the govenment!!
idnotego 2 years ago
Well written. Thanks!
hooverdog1957 2 years ago
EXACTLY! It's some kind of twisted message they perpetuate, isn't it? Constantly trying to ram it into everyone's heads that we're servants and dependent on the gov't.
The gov't tit is serving up sour milk. No thanks.
byrdinflight 2 years ago
ARRRRRGHHH!!!! Why do so many swallow the 'free market is to blame' line from people like Benjamin Barber? In this clip, Barber argues with Peter Schiff that gov't needs to protect consumers (5:50 mark) yet his book "Consumed" argues that consumerism is evil. So Barber actually believes that gov't needs to perpetuate consumerism by protecting consumers? It really sounds like Barber needs to reaccess his way of thinking. There seems to be some major inconsistencies.
idnotego 2 years ago 3
Benjamin is fricken clueless...
controlpopulation 2 years ago 3
This guy is an absolute tool. Trying to paint Peter as a politician...what a fool. A guy who worked for Clinton...dumbass
abirch300 2 years ago 3
I just hate how fast and rushed this guy was talking, it makes you want to say slow down. This is no doubt due to the fact that it's a commercial station that has to get ads aired on que. Also, when you have shows that are rushed like this you can begin to understand why at least some people are turned off when it comes to financial news. This is the drawback to commerical television, support public access, it may not be the best but at least it's not so rushed and you learn more.
1lain 2 years ago 2
the host is canadian BTW...so how you can trust this guy talking about markets and America is beyond me.
mike6459 2 years ago
Peter was and still right!
vaporsun 2 years ago
The Banks are in essence government agencies because they use force (ie legal tender laws) to control their "market".
healthhavencom 2 years ago
i hate dumbasses who claim "we" are the govt. we didn't want to give any banks bailouts but the govt did it anyway. so under this moron's logic, since we are the govt, and we didn't want to bail out the banks, but the govt did it anyway, so we DID want to bailout the banks.
ab-fucking-surd.
Schiff 2010!
supertommy1 2 years ago
amen
nobullshit 2010
spiggitybap 2 years ago
Benjamin Barber is Consumed by his don't blame the governement for our economic mess it was the banks and government is here to regulate and fix...unbelievable!
NormanMoran 2 years ago 2
CNN, yeah were going to take economical advice from these ass holes.
Derleiter17 2 years ago
I like how this prototypical liberal assumes that because Schiff is opposed to what the government is doing, he must be in support of the big banks. Unfortunately such two dimensional, partisan thinking is the norm. He does not know how to respond to an anti-establishment argument like Peter's. It's also entertaining to hear him spout off the dogma of democracy--as if despite all evidence to the contrary, the government actually represents "the people" against private interests. what a laugh
snarej 2 years ago 14
The banks and the Government are one and the same is this guy for real. I should write a book if that guy can it can't be that hard
cyalaterthan 2 years ago 5