The debt when George W. Bush took office was $5.727 Trillion when he left it was $10.627 Trillion. The total debt that George W accumulated in eight years of office is $4.84 Trillion The debt right now is $14.23 Trillion. In approximately 788 days in office, Obama has accumulated $4.24 Trillion. Using simple algebra you'll find by Nov 24 2011, Obama will have accumulated more debt in three years than George W. did in 8 years.
Doesn't this guy know that government spending got us out of the Great Depresstion? It started with the New Deal and extended all the way to the Great public works program called World War II. And here's a novel idea. Instead of borrowing from other countries to pay for our budget, how about if we TAX OUR CITIZENS to pay for our budget?
The ends don't justify the means in the case of war but I wasn't the one who bombed Pearl Harbor. It's much better to, I don't know, spend the money on fixing infrastructure perhaps? That's what China, Germany, France, the U.K. and many other countries have been doing all this time. The rest of the world seems to agree it's just what you do when you're in a recession; tax and spend. What makes you think we should stand out from the rest of the world? Are you rich or something? Is that it?
The objective is to keep money in the pockets of businesses so they can hire people; keep regulations down so businesses can build quality, affordable products; and keep the money in the pockets of people so they can purchase goods and services. Ideally, both parties are happier after a transaction.
As it stands, the lower classes are forced to give money to the rich and politically well connected, bailing them out and buying too much overpriced, unneeded products.
And regarding taxes; Eisenhower raised taxed to around 91% during WWII to pay for all of it without going into debt. I wonder why the 50's happened to be one of our most prosperous decades. You would think after all that taxing we would be broke but guess what? That money wasn't burned in a fire pit. It went to the men and women who built the bombs and the airplanes thus allowing them to buy toasters and black and white t.v.s
In a recession people stop spending. Therefore the government has to step in and fulfill that function; namely, by spending. In essence, however, you could say that we are FORCING the top (5% in today's case) to do the spending for us. They're spending it on asphalt, steel girders, solar panels, smart electrical griders, and all the laborers needed to put these things into place. Unfortunately, they're really not paying for it because raising taxes is taboo in this country. Its better to borrow.
@brothermikefan That is false, FDR's New Deal and Hoover's progressive economic policies made it worse. WWII just made statistics look nice when huge amount of people got drafted, but it really didn't end the depression.
WHY does ANYONE call this idiot President? He's nothing more than a inexperienced MORON.. He now needs to admit that he's a failure and get out, and let someone run the country who actually knows how. THIS GUY NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED.... Such a mistake to put him in there.BUT WE ALL KNOW who got him elected.. TOTAL IDIOTS, elected this bastard.
Peter, now that polls show you can beat Dodd, turn your attention to beating your primary opponents. Beating them IS beating Dodd.
Please focus your limited resources.
Furthermore, don't try advertising so much on right-wing radio. Do it on left-wing radio where you can mention your libertarian social-freedoms credentials, but also that you're educated in economics and want to sell them on why you're the best option.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The FED is designed to hide the bad debts our economy has. Too much transparency and we will go down the tubes. Something will happen and Gold will level off. Printing more dollars will work because we are the biggest economy of last resort.
What? Dude, stop your retarded bullshit. People have explained it to you multiple times. National debt is going up, money is being printed, and the value of the dollar (long term) is going down. Gold is way up, its in record territory. Its currently having a small correction, but the long term targets remain the same. Everything peter schiff says is coming true. DillonX, the blind man, is coming into the bar to tell everyone that the sky is green.
What Schiff is saying is that those Ford stocks that are no worth $9.00/share won't be worth anything because the dollars you bought them with - and the dollars they are paid out with - are going to devalue significantly. That's why people buy gold and silver.
its almost undeniable proof about the good peter is doing and how right he is, that the media will try their best to ignore him and undermine him. so lets look at who owns the media. if i ran a media i would promote the hell out of peter. its just the opposite. they dont want peter to win because he is for the people and not for the corporations.
@rawer77 Agreed. Media today is so far from their responsibility to a free society. A true journalist should be ashamed to be part of this profession. Their job is to stir the waters, but the American media might as well just say who they really are: corporate journalists - writing articles for the New World Order.
audio - you're right that some people think they're getting ahead on their gold investment when all that happened was the value of the dollar went down.
So if in 1 month Gold went up 10% from $1000 to $1100 per oz, but the dollar lost 10% in value in that month you are about even.
The oz of gold you have will buy about the same amt of goods so you haven't advanced.
And that's not even taking into account commissions, storage fees, etc.
Well you have to understand, gold isnt actually going up in 'real' terms (relative to nominal). Gold only appears to be going up because the value of the dollar is going down. Thats the ONLY reason (as of yet). So it still may go up to $5,000 over the next few years, it just depends on how far down the dollar goes.
Peter Schiff is being largely ignored in the press because American media is so biased and of course the U.S. has a diluted version of democracy where people have to vote like chimps between only Republican-Democrat.
"Peter Schiff is being largely ignored in the press "
Are you kidding? Schiffty Pete is all over the media. He's constantly pimping himself on CNBC and Faux News. Larry "the perfect inverse barometer" Kudlow features Schiffty Pete every other night.
Fair enough. If you consider him being on air not being ignored, he isn't ignored. When the media does ignore what he's saying though, isn't fair to say they are ignoring him? It's not really a matter if agree with Pete, rather notice the media doesn't really give two shits what peter schiff says.
No, Kudlow doesn't have Schiff every other night if you were being literal.
Hey, that's great. I'm glad Peter Schiff is getting more attention. Many people think they know better than Peter, but he has a track record of being right on in his predictions.
He talks good common sense so it's no surprise he offends some people.
Telling a lie may anger a vain person, but telling the truth will more than likely anger him twice as much.
Uh, actually Schiffty Pete's prediction track record for the past few years is pretty mediocre. I'll be interested to see how his prediction of gold prices jumping to $5,000 an ounce will pan out.
What was he wrong about? Euro Pac clients lost money in 2008, just as everyone did, but they more than made up for ONE bad year! He pretty much called the subprime crisis. He predicts hyperinflation for the US dollar and more and more economist are subscribing to this belief. All it takes really is for a few key nations to stop accepting our dollar.
I'm also interested in gold going to 5K, I don't think it will happen. I think the dollar will rise in value, although I'm not sure how yet.
In May 2002, Schiffty Pete predicted hyperinflation, skyrocketing interest rates and the Dow falling to 2000 within two years. None of that happened. Instead, inflation was mild, interest rates fell and the Dow soared. People who listened to Schiffty missed out missed out on a huge move in stocks. He was also way behind many economists in predicting the bursting of Greenspan's housing bubble. Schiffty is great at marketing himself, though.
1 of the things working against gold hitting $5000 any time soon is that each yr the amount of refined gold in the world is greater than the yr before & this has been going on for hundreds of years
So supply is constantly increasing - not applicable to almost all other commodities
Another thing is that China went from almost a total non-producer to the world's largest producer quickly & it could easily double in a few years
Now China is about the world's largest gold jewelry exporter
So is the population of the world which grows exponentially over the yeats. Gold is not refined any where near the rate of pop. growth. Gold is finite and has inherent value. It is worth in relation to how much others possess. There will always be more people
Gold will go to $5,000, but probably not anytime soon, probably within 10 years. Gold is a diminishing resource and it's production has been declining for about 10 years. The easy to find gold has been found. Remember, supernovas create only so much gold. And the US government continues to debase the US$ by creating too much debt.
Obama hates capitalism. He is bent on destroying the capitalist system in favor of socialism. Spread the wealth. Take from the rich and give to the poor. Like Robin Hood. He is deliberately dismantling American capitalism. To deny this fact is to be unprepared for the future. If you are too ignorant to understand what is happening now, and why, you will suffer the most. If you understand it and go along with it, you are in for the surprise of your life. Big money is leaving America now.
First hand knowledge my friend. Going to sea, lots of my friends. Taking a sabbatical. South Pacific in the family yachts. Like my own family. 71' schooner named Imagine. In Fiji now.
He should be talking about Cheney who keeps advocating to send our kids to die in the middle east to protect Cheney and his oil buddies OIL interests....not ours.
while Cheney NEVER served and used 5 deferment to avoid serving out country...
no respect for cheney. why isn't this guy talking about that.
gold is a scam, we all know it.
He just wants you to buy a piece of paper.. YOu know how many times the same piece of paper has been sold???
@DillonX Notice how people try to make fun of someone and use name calling because they have no substance and can't argue with the fundamentals....limited (shrinking) government, reduced spending, free market economics?
Peter Schiff just uses common sense . You don't need a PhD in economics to understand that you can't print and spend money you don't have to fix your economy.
People that have half a brain are more interested in the trends and realize that big government is the real problem.
Nah. Check the record. In May 2002, Schiffty Pete predicted hyperinflation, skyrocketing interest rates and the Dow falling to 2000 within two years. None of that happened. Now Schiffty is predicting that the price of gold will rise to $5,000 an ounce. It'll be interesting to see how that works out.
In 2002, Schiffty Pete predicted hyperinflation, skyrocketing interest rates and the Dow falling to 2000 within two years. None of that ever happened. Schiffty Pete is just another fearmongering RepubliCon politician.
His predictions have a great track record. Nobody can predict the specifics of government intervention. Ignore economists that are usually right at your own risk.
Uh, no. Schiffy Pete's record is mediocre at best. Many economists including Krugman, Roubini and Baker saw this economic mess coming back when Schiffty Pete was still crowing about the Bush Boom.
He saw it in detail, he wasn't just saying general things like "Oh the housing market is going to go down!" And he wasn't the only Austrian economist that saw it coming in detail.
In my opinion, sometimes Schiff is too early, but he is almost always right. I have no problem listening to the economist that is early but right. Especially considering how government intervention is what often delayed what he predicted.
Actually, Schiffty Pete wasn't all that early. His predictions on the housing bubble took place long after many of us saw it coming and bailed on the banks, REITS, Fannie and Freddy. From what I hear, his Euro Pacific fund is still down sharply. Schiffty has a great PR deparment, though. It'll be interesting to see if the price of gold rises to $5,000 as Schiffty predicted it would. Personally, I'm skeptical.
Bailed out the banks? He was earlier than that. 2008 was a bad year for him because he invested like it was 2009. That's why he did so great in 2009.
No, "bailed on the banks". As in sold our bank stocks. Schiffty Pete didn't start talking about the housing bubble until long after Keynesians like Krugman and Roubini figured it out.
I would switch Jesse and Ron Paul in your lineup, although that ticket would probably have a better chance.
I like Jesse, he used to be my governor and did a better job than past and present administrations here, but I disagree with him on some fundamental issues.
The story that is moving the markets lately is this "supposed" rate hike that will "eventually" come from the Fed. HAHA! Even if it does come, it will be a token gesture like .25% from 0%. BIG DEAL! Of course they'll play it up as much as possible. Oh look Ben is taming future inflation. YEAH RIGHT! Volcker had rates at around 20% in the 70's and this is the greatest recession since the Depression and definitely the largest printing of new money EVER on record. What will rates have to be now?
My guess is gold will never go below $1000 USD/oz for the rest of time. Korea and China are trying to talk gold down so they can buy it on the cheap. When the IMF recently sold 400 tons of Gold, I think the game plan was all the central banks were suppose to stand back and let it flood into the market to drive the price down. However, India broke ranks and snapped it up at what will soon be known as a bargain price
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Seems to me that Schiff is jealous of what Obama has done. Gold is about to decline to $900 and Schiff thinks he is the only one that can see the future (if he does say so himself). He is just a negative right wing crazy.
Precious metal is being driven down by an artificial correction. The White Shoe Boys are absolutely behind the drop. They can't hold it down forever though and when it pops up again, it will rip free from the dollar. Jealous of Obama? I don't think so.
You are in the right spot at the right time. I won't say that mainstream media coverage isn't important - it is, but not to the degree it used to be. In addition, we're talking about a popular 'uprising' per say.
As wisdom would dictate, 'let the people speak for him'. The groundswell of grassroots support is what is going to carry this candidacy to victory in November, not popular 'mainstream' media support.
Your only worry should be keeping the message clear and consistent.
Obam is a racist, fascist, narsasitic, wants to destroy America, Obama should be in jail along with Bush, and both parties, Obama is a socialist marksist with so many czars. Obama go ahead and silence me, Glen, Hannity everyone. None of these leaders are the head of the tea party movement. We all are. Be tyranical so people can throw you guys out into the unemployment line. Get lost Obama we hate you.
I think Bernankes strategy works in a way. Amerika is sucking up german / european jobs in car production (Mercedes). Do you think the cheap dollar can make you more competitive and help save geithner and bernanke?
Yeah, Obama is not going to rest like OJ said that he was not going to rest until he found his ex-wife's killer. What a load of PR crap!
Too bad the main stream media is bought and paid for like the politicians and the judiciary. It would be great to see Peter win his race and guys like him. But the sheep far outnumber those that have a much better idea what is going on. This is no reason not to keep trying but Peter shouldn't be surprised how any MSM refers to him.
Wow Schiff is getting very popular on here. Beware of temporary deflation. Thinking hyperfinflation in a sure bet is giving Bernanke to much credit. That is what he wants, I dont think he will get it.
Seems he is an expert investor especially of gold but what does he want to do about our schools, hospitals and social services? Is he gonna take all money out of these things and bring down my property value to zero?
@ Turbo291 - Schiff is for capitalistic health care system. You can look at the campaignforliberty channel his video where he explains why it is the best solution.
The fact that the mainstream media is downplaying Peter is the reason why he needs to get into office. No more Washington insiders like Dodd or media darling like Obama who is nothing more than another Bush bought and paid for by the Federal Reserve.
A real economist possesses advanced math skills and applies them to process actual economic data to check for consistency with models, etc. They go where the research leads them, not toward any particular school of economics. If that makes for counter-intutive conclusions, then so be it. Keynesism and monetarism are counter-intuitive, just as is quantum mechanics. Austrians think the economy is like a big accounting identity,but it isn't The same is true about common sense notions and the
I'm only replying as I see this as a good debate. Not here to flame anyone including yourself.
As an engineer, I agree with you that its rational to use data and check the validity of the model but Wall Street made an arrogant assumption that they could model human behavior. Even with all the advance simulations, engineers still physically test the products (ex. aircrafts) that are designed because we can never assume that we have all the correct data and the model is infallible...contd
Having said that, economists give opinions based on data and model which is subject to GIGO, their observations of how things work, what they are told and sometimes with some common sense. It's like the bell curve in few can see a pattern before others and just because some people's voice may be in the minority doesn't mean they are not credible. I think Peter's naysayers should come up with a convincing case to convince him that he is wrong. The only thing I've seen are people shaking heads
It's true that minority opinions can certainly be right, but Schiff's are not. If you read my comments on this page, you'll get a great deal of my perspectives on this. Schiff not only ignores data, but his perspectives aren't even internally consistent.
It's the whole domino theory. That if the steel workers aren't spending money, then the grocery store gets less money, which means farmers get less money, which means farm equipment factories get less money, etc...
But this makes no sense. If the efficiency of steel production doubles, this means the price of steel goes down for consumers. If the price of labor falls, this means that consumer prices go down. The economy is better off not worse off, because it is more efficient.
There are some problems there. One, wages are sticky on the way down. That's why there's unemployment during recessions.
Two, deflation is self-feeding, in the as expectations of future falls in prices are baked in, people start putting off purchases to wait until they can make them more cheaply. So, money velocity slows and the economy spirals down at an increasing rate.
That is simply not true. Do you have a cell phone? Why? The price of cell phones goes down every year, why buy one? Why buy a laptop, or a computer? The price is always falling. Deflation doesn't mean the end of the economy.
Deflation means that more people save their money, which means we get more capital investment, which means that in the future we are better off.
So while yes, we go through a tough time in the short term, in the long term we are infinitely better off.
Wow. I knew it would come to that. You come on this video and start spouting off random economic terms strait from the textbook, because you finally took a course in economics and you now want to feel superior to other people with your new found knowledge.
Questioning my intelligence is not a valid argument.
And I just think that you should know that, while Microeconomics makes a lot sense, the stuff they teach in Macro in school is all a bunch of gibberish.
I mentioned your ignorance, not your intelligence.
And I took macro 12 years ago and use it almost everyday.
And you are the one who spouts off about things you know nothing about. You apparently think it's okay to criticize a theory that you're completely unfamilar with and then make comments about me when my perspective is right on this page in my many comments.
You also seem to think you know more than nearly every PhD economist since the '30s. lol
There we go, you have just shifted the focus of the conversation off of the facts, and onto intelligence. I am no psychologist, but I suspect this is because the entire reason you are on this video is to prove you're intelligence rather than defend the facts. You want to feel smarter than people.
Well I am not going to indulge you. I'll let your psychosis speak for itself and instead engage you on any factual criticism you might make. Fire away.
Not everyone will put off their purchases for exactly the same time. Some people will prefer to delay the satisfaction of purchasing a product now and pay a little more, and others will place less of a premium on receiving the product now and prefer to either hold their money or spend it elsewhere. A common example is the tech gadget market - some people have to have the newest gadget as soon as it's out and pay more for it, while others will wait for the price to come down to purchase.
gary, no offense, but if you can't even see that this refers to the rate of transactionss, that lets me know you are way out of your depth here. I'm going to take a guess and say you never took calculus, Calculus is all about rates of change with applications.
Deflation spiral, in a sense, is overexaggerated. US "suffered" from deflation since the Panic of 1873 to 1896( -1.7% per annum), when it grew as the industrial power. Also, during the depression of 1920-21, prices also fell dramatically from 1919-1921 (~15%)
You're mixing apples and oranges. Some of the deflation of the late 19th century in the US was caused by economic downturns like the Long Depression. However, there were also deflationary forces that had to do with efficiency gains. You see this with developing economies as the GDP catches up to productive potential.
That recession had to do with economic readjustment after WW1 and changes in monetary and fiscal policy. The deflation was severe compared to the drop in GDP and unemployment(8.7%), due to resources being sidelined during reallocation. Once the shift away from stimulative fiscal and monetary policy began to end, as well as that of private capital and labor inputs, the economy recovered quickly. The money supply was much too tight, among other things.
sigh. Are you not reading carefully or just not getting it? I stated that the Fed's monetary policy was too tight. That means they didn't expand the money supply.
Actually, the downturn in 1920-21 was due to a contraction of the money supply following a vast increase to fund our involvement in WWI, so the FED's monetary policy was instrumental in that downturn. The reason it was so short-lived was that the federal gov't didn't embark on massive wasteful spending programs and allowed the free market to make the necessary corrections.
The private sector experienced the single greatest growth spurt in American history in 1946, after the war ended, millions of able-bodied young men returned from Europe and entered the workforce, production shifted away from wasteful war materials toward consumer goods, and arbitrary war-era prices were removed. The growth of GDP during the war was due exclusively to gov't war spending, draining the private sector of capital.
Which occurred after the fed and treasury tightened their previously too-loose wartime fiscal policies. Again, central bank and Treasury meddling in the money supply, both in loosening and then subsequently tightening the money supply, generated the downturn. And to call it a "deep recession" is disingenuous - GDP fell by less than 2%. (Not that GDP is a great indicator of economic growth, since gov't non-productive, non-free enterprise spending is included in the numbers).
given the nwo permanent higher levels of peace time spending, there was less deflation.
So, in 19-21 and just after WW2, there was a shift from wartime to peace time production with changes in monetary and fiscal policy, which contributed to somewhat severe, but short-lived recessions.
I never implied it in any way. I was very specific. Deflation due to the supply of money failing to meet demand is dangerous. Other causes are in some cases, and aren't in others. I have a page full of comments here and you're completely wrong about everything I've written about deflation.
If there is too little currency to chase an increasing number of goods, prices will fall, resulting in the currency appreciating in buying power and contributing to an increase in capital investment and an increase in the quality of life for the populace. The US experienced gentle overall price deflation in the early to mid 1800's, and these years saw some of the greatest increases in economic growth in our history.
No, the rate of transactions goes down and prices continue to fall, so output goes down and there's more unemployment, etc. This is basic economics. You may as well say that gravity is a force we struggle against to keep ourselves on the earth.
Look up the research for God's sake. This is basic!
If wages were allowed to fall in line with the decrease in the price of goods, jobs would be preserved. This can only work, however, with a currency that instead of continually losing value due to central bank-fueled inflation, gradually increases in value.
Actually, it is the "stickiness" of wages that is one of the fundamental principles of Keynesian economic theory. It has nothing to do with currency translations.
And it's that same "stickiness" that has contributed to the continual reduction in real wages, reducing the standard of living for the working classes.
Say what? You think that the fact that nominal wages haven't declined has reduced the living standards of the working class? Sound like an oxymoron to me. Do you think it might have something to do with shifting the tax burden away from capital and on to labor as we did under Trickle Down Reaganomics and the Bush tax cuts? Do you think it might have something to do with subsidizing foreign manufacturing?
While nominal wages haven't been allowed to fall, real wages have continued to fall due to the pernicious effects of inflation, the most insidious, underhanded tax on the American people. Low taxes are always good, but the major problem with Reagan and Bush's policies were that they both greatly expanded gov't spending, and provided corporate subsidies to favored interests, diverting funds from productive sectors of the economy and draining those sectors of capital.
Also, Keynsian's don't understand what government spending does. They assume that if the government spends money, it creates jobs. This ignores the fact the when the government spends money, it must first TAKE the money. So while they create a job in the government sector, they destroy one in the private sector.
If the government borrows the money, that means that there is less money for entrepreneurs to borrow to build factories and provide future production. So it retards the economies growth
No. You're focusing on the wrong things. If the government takes money that'd normally be saved on average during a recession and spends it, it raises money velocity which is the goal of any stimulus. get the money moving at full employment rates and the economy will reallocate the malinvestment as rapidly as possible.
it makes no sense to say that the economy can best perform this reallocation with high unemployment and idle resources. Those workers need to work and resoures liquidated.
Now you're stating fallacies. If the government spends saved money and increases the marginal propensity to consume, this means that less money is being saved. If less money is being saved, then we get higher interest rates and less capital investment.
A man in a bulldozer does much more work than a man with a shovel, so he can be paid more. But only because he has the bulldozer. Where did the bulldozer come from? Somebody somewhere saved their money, and loaned it to the man to buy it.
Hey Zeldovich. I'm going to hire you to help me to down the block and break peoples windows. Tomorrow, everybody will have to go out and buy a new window, which will employ the glassmaker, which will make more money for glassmakers tools, and more money for his grocery store, which will employ a lot of people.
Does that sound like good economics to you? That is essentially what you are saying, but you hide behind terms like "full employment" and "money supply" so you don't sound stupid.
No, you just don't understand basic economics or the Keynesianism you think you're criticizing. You should probably learn the ins and outs of a theory you criticize all the time.
And me breaking windows to put people to work is different than biilding something new. The latter doesn't destroy assets and employs capital to help bring everyone out of recession so they uemployment can go down and the economy is more productive.
Yes but it makes things less efficient. You bum. If you employ ten people to do a five man job you are WASTING money. Those extra five people may as well be digging holes and filling them up again.
And that is EXACTLY what the government does when it spends money to employ people. It does it inefficiently at massive loss to the taxpayer. It's not about employment, it's about production.
Well, if you mean it can create some inflation, if not net inflation,then you're right. That's where the inefficiency turns up. But, it doesn't work that way during recessionary deflation.
uncertainty principle. Before that concept was developed, there was an implicit, though unnoticed assumption that momentum, position,etc could be determined simultaneously.
It is obvious the establishment (like they treated Ron Paul) trying to dimiss everyone who doesn't want to tax and spend as a marginal outside figure.
The debt when George W. Bush took office was $5.727 Trillion when he left it was $10.627 Trillion. The total debt that George W accumulated in eight years of office is $4.84 Trillion The debt right now is $14.23 Trillion. In approximately 788 days in office, Obama has accumulated $4.24 Trillion. Using simple algebra you'll find by Nov 24 2011, Obama will have accumulated more debt in three years than George W. did in 8 years.
Allen West 2012
FreedomInAmerica 10 months ago
Doesn't this guy know that government spending got us out of the Great Depresstion? It started with the New Deal and extended all the way to the Great public works program called World War II. And here's a novel idea. Instead of borrowing from other countries to pay for our budget, how about if we TAX OUR CITIZENS to pay for our budget?
brothermikefan 2 years ago
If you believe that you're incredibly gullible.
SDS4BO 2 years ago
So the businesses that profitted from all the government contracts didn't go on to become more successful and thus be able to invest in themselves?
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Do the ends justify the means?
SDS4BO 2 years ago
The ends don't justify the means in the case of war but I wasn't the one who bombed Pearl Harbor. It's much better to, I don't know, spend the money on fixing infrastructure perhaps? That's what China, Germany, France, the U.K. and many other countries have been doing all this time. The rest of the world seems to agree it's just what you do when you're in a recession; tax and spend. What makes you think we should stand out from the rest of the world? Are you rich or something? Is that it?
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Canada's doing it too so the communism/socialism argument won't fly if that's what you were about to come up with.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
The objective is to keep money in the pockets of businesses so they can hire people; keep regulations down so businesses can build quality, affordable products; and keep the money in the pockets of people so they can purchase goods and services. Ideally, both parties are happier after a transaction.
As it stands, the lower classes are forced to give money to the rich and politically well connected, bailing them out and buying too much overpriced, unneeded products.
jbo5112 1 year ago
Comment removed
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Not to mention the fact that World War II finally brought unemployment down to a non-depression level?
brothermikefan 2 years ago
ROFL.
SDS4BO 2 years ago
And regarding taxes; Eisenhower raised taxed to around 91% during WWII to pay for all of it without going into debt. I wonder why the 50's happened to be one of our most prosperous decades. You would think after all that taxing we would be broke but guess what? That money wasn't burned in a fire pit. It went to the men and women who built the bombs and the airplanes thus allowing them to buy toasters and black and white t.v.s
brothermikefan 2 years ago
I should say he raised the TOP tax rate to 91%
brothermikefan 2 years ago
In a recession people stop spending. Therefore the government has to step in and fulfill that function; namely, by spending. In essence, however, you could say that we are FORCING the top (5% in today's case) to do the spending for us. They're spending it on asphalt, steel girders, solar panels, smart electrical griders, and all the laborers needed to put these things into place. Unfortunately, they're really not paying for it because raising taxes is taboo in this country. Its better to borrow.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
I meant to say smart electrical transformers.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
You really DO believe this!
SDS4BO 2 years ago
ROFL
SDS4BO 2 years ago
I don't know if you're being retarded or if you have a point. Which is it?
brothermikefan 2 years ago
If you don't know already it would be a waste of my time to bother with you.
SDS4BO 2 years ago
Retarded. I knew it.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
Thank you Rahm Emanuel. I see you're still at the same IQ level as before.
SDS4BO 2 years ago
And I see you still have nothing to say old fart.
brothermikefan 2 years ago
@brothermikefan That is false, FDR's New Deal and Hoover's progressive economic policies made it worse. WWII just made statistics look nice when huge amount of people got drafted, but it really didn't end the depression.
teemu21 1 year ago
Are there poll numbers on running as an independent? Lieberman won as one, though granted, he was the incumbent...
jcfan42 2 years ago
WHY does ANYONE call this idiot President? He's nothing more than a inexperienced MORON.. He now needs to admit that he's a failure and get out, and let someone run the country who actually knows how. THIS GUY NEEDS TO BE IMPEACHED.... Such a mistake to put him in there.BUT WE ALL KNOW who got him elected.. TOTAL IDIOTS, elected this bastard.
ontheair323 2 years ago 2
@ontheair323
all the presidents are puppets
TheFlex21 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do you like cock suckers!
hilololomoa 2 years ago
peter you fraud, your such a huge let down. you neocon judas...
freepatriot1776 2 years ago
Peter, now that polls show you can beat Dodd, turn your attention to beating your primary opponents. Beating them IS beating Dodd.
Please focus your limited resources.
Furthermore, don't try advertising so much on right-wing radio. Do it on left-wing radio where you can mention your libertarian social-freedoms credentials, but also that you're educated in economics and want to sell them on why you're the best option.
VoteLiberty 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The FED is designed to hide the bad debts our economy has. Too much transparency and we will go down the tubes. Something will happen and Gold will level off. Printing more dollars will work because we are the biggest economy of last resort.
BillsonTheRoad 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A couple of my friends bought a little gold.
Instead I bought Ford Stock when it was down around $1 per share.
Most of what Shiffty has said has not come true.
DillonX 2 years ago
What? Dude, stop your retarded bullshit. People have explained it to you multiple times. National debt is going up, money is being printed, and the value of the dollar (long term) is going down. Gold is way up, its in record territory. Its currently having a small correction, but the long term targets remain the same. Everything peter schiff says is coming true. DillonX, the blind man, is coming into the bar to tell everyone that the sky is green.
PairoftheSocks 2 years ago 5
What Schiff is saying is that those Ford stocks that are no worth $9.00/share won't be worth anything because the dollars you bought them with - and the dollars they are paid out with - are going to devalue significantly. That's why people buy gold and silver.
draemalic 2 years ago 2
DillonX,
I remember you during the RP campaign--you posted tons of comments. Why are you, of all people, against Peter Schiff?
purplefetus3 2 years ago
Peter probably won't win because he won't just tell people want they want to hear. Unless you want just want the truth.
VictoryCough 2 years ago 6
its almost undeniable proof about the good peter is doing and how right he is, that the media will try their best to ignore him and undermine him. so lets look at who owns the media. if i ran a media i would promote the hell out of peter. its just the opposite. they dont want peter to win because he is for the people and not for the corporations.
rawer77 2 years ago
@rawer77 Agreed. Media today is so far from their responsibility to a free society. A true journalist should be ashamed to be part of this profession. Their job is to stir the waters, but the American media might as well just say who they really are: corporate journalists - writing articles for the New World Order.
Shameonfed 2 years ago 2
I heard a rumor that every War in Human History has lead to Inflation.
Just what I hear.
FEARisPROFIT 2 years ago
Huh, thats interesting. Might even be true. Certainly true for the US. We haven't fought a war that we haven't created the money for.
VictoryCough 2 years ago 2
audio - you're right that some people think they're getting ahead on their gold investment when all that happened was the value of the dollar went down.
So if in 1 month Gold went up 10% from $1000 to $1100 per oz, but the dollar lost 10% in value in that month you are about even.
The oz of gold you have will buy about the same amt of goods so you haven't advanced.
And that's not even taking into account commissions, storage fees, etc.
DillonX 2 years ago
Yes, the population is growing but probably 97% of the people in the world own no gold & 99.9% have needs for other things more than gold.
And gold is everywhere - it's in the rivers, lakes, oceans, probably in your back yard.
And 1 thing that works against gold climbing too much is that every time it goes up a little bit, that makes more areas profitable for gold mining.
If gold could actually reach 5,000 & hold you would like have 4 times as many countries mining it.
DillonX 2 years ago
Well you have to understand, gold isnt actually going up in 'real' terms (relative to nominal). Gold only appears to be going up because the value of the dollar is going down. Thats the ONLY reason (as of yet). So it still may go up to $5,000 over the next few years, it just depends on how far down the dollar goes.
audiohi 2 years ago 2
screw senate, run for president.
hotrodZack1948 2 years ago
Peter Schiff is being largely ignored in the press because American media is so biased and of course the U.S. has a diluted version of democracy where people have to vote like chimps between only Republican-Democrat.
jibbi4one 2 years ago
"Peter Schiff is being largely ignored in the press "
Are you kidding? Schiffty Pete is all over the media. He's constantly pimping himself on CNBC and Faux News. Larry "the perfect inverse barometer" Kudlow features Schiffty Pete every other night.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
Fair enough. If you consider him being on air not being ignored, he isn't ignored. When the media does ignore what he's saying though, isn't fair to say they are ignoring him? It's not really a matter if agree with Pete, rather notice the media doesn't really give two shits what peter schiff says.
No, Kudlow doesn't have Schiff every other night if you were being literal.
Betty5150 2 years ago
Hey, that's great. I'm glad Peter Schiff is getting more attention. Many people think they know better than Peter, but he has a track record of being right on in his predictions.
He talks good common sense so it's no surprise he offends some people.
Telling a lie may anger a vain person, but telling the truth will more than likely anger him twice as much.
averagejoe040 2 years ago
Uh, actually Schiffty Pete's prediction track record for the past few years is pretty mediocre. I'll be interested to see how his prediction of gold prices jumping to $5,000 an ounce will pan out.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
What was he wrong about? Euro Pac clients lost money in 2008, just as everyone did, but they more than made up for ONE bad year! He pretty much called the subprime crisis. He predicts hyperinflation for the US dollar and more and more economist are subscribing to this belief. All it takes really is for a few key nations to stop accepting our dollar.
I'm also interested in gold going to 5K, I don't think it will happen. I think the dollar will rise in value, although I'm not sure how yet.
VictoryCough 2 years ago
"What was he wrong about? "
In May 2002, Schiffty Pete predicted hyperinflation, skyrocketing interest rates and the Dow falling to 2000 within two years. None of that happened. Instead, inflation was mild, interest rates fell and the Dow soared. People who listened to Schiffty missed out missed out on a huge move in stocks. He was also way behind many economists in predicting the bursting of Greenspan's housing bubble. Schiffty is great at marketing himself, though.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
Watch Marc Faber Phd in Economics. watch?v=UfuiNjvH9_c
commonsense2008 2 years ago
1 of the things working against gold hitting $5000 any time soon is that each yr the amount of refined gold in the world is greater than the yr before & this has been going on for hundreds of years
So supply is constantly increasing - not applicable to almost all other commodities
Another thing is that China went from almost a total non-producer to the world's largest producer quickly & it could easily double in a few years
Now China is about the world's largest gold jewelry exporter
DillonX 2 years ago
So is the population of the world which grows exponentially over the yeats. Gold is not refined any where near the rate of pop. growth. Gold is finite and has inherent value. It is worth in relation to how much others possess. There will always be more people
joedk325 2 years ago
Gold will go to $5,000, but probably not anytime soon, probably within 10 years. Gold is a diminishing resource and it's production has been declining for about 10 years. The easy to find gold has been found. Remember, supernovas create only so much gold. And the US government continues to debase the US$ by creating too much debt.
naggold 2 years ago
Obama hates capitalism. He is bent on destroying the capitalist system in favor of socialism. Spread the wealth. Take from the rich and give to the poor. Like Robin Hood. He is deliberately dismantling American capitalism. To deny this fact is to be unprepared for the future. If you are too ignorant to understand what is happening now, and why, you will suffer the most. If you understand it and go along with it, you are in for the surprise of your life. Big money is leaving America now.
NotEasilyRegimented 2 years ago
"Big money is leaving America now. "
Got any support for that statement or is it just something you picked up from the RepubliCon hacks at Faux News?
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
First hand knowledge my friend. Going to sea, lots of my friends. Taking a sabbatical. South Pacific in the family yachts. Like my own family. 71' schooner named Imagine. In Fiji now.
NotEasilyRegimented 2 years ago
Another tax dodging Conservative Nanny State RepubliCon? Figures. Please, Go Galt!
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
Too soon old. Too late smart.
NotEasilyRegimented 2 years ago
He should be talking about Cheney who keeps advocating to send our kids to die in the middle east to protect Cheney and his oil buddies OIL interests....not ours.
while Cheney NEVER served and used 5 deferment to avoid serving out country...
no respect for cheney. why isn't this guy talking about that.
gold is a scam, we all know it.
He just wants you to buy a piece of paper.. YOu know how many times the same piece of paper has been sold???
thecruiseliner 2 years ago
Shifty predicted that gold would probably be over 2000, maybe 5,000, by the end of 2009. The 5,000 figure was absolutely irresponsible.
I'm afraid that in his senate race, many people will come forward bitching about all the money they've lost using his funds.
DillonX 2 years ago
The 5,000 figure is only possible in hyper inflation hits, which could happen.
hurryingfred 2 years ago
@DillonX Notice how people try to make fun of someone and use name calling because they have no substance and can't argue with the fundamentals....limited (shrinking) government, reduced spending, free market economics?
Peter Schiff just uses common sense . You don't need a PhD in economics to understand that you can't print and spend money you don't have to fix your economy.
People that have half a brain are more interested in the trends and realize that big government is the real problem.
paullie6719 2 years ago
Nah. Check the record. In May 2002, Schiffty Pete predicted hyperinflation, skyrocketing interest rates and the Dow falling to 2000 within two years. None of that happened. Now Schiffty is predicting that the price of gold will rise to $5,000 an ounce. It'll be interesting to see how that works out.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
In 2002, Schiffty Pete predicted hyperinflation, skyrocketing interest rates and the Dow falling to 2000 within two years. None of that ever happened. Schiffty Pete is just another fearmongering RepubliCon politician.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
His predictions have a great track record. Nobody can predict the specifics of government intervention. Ignore economists that are usually right at your own risk.
hurryingfred 2 years ago
Uh, no. Schiffy Pete's record is mediocre at best. Many economists including Krugman, Roubini and Baker saw this economic mess coming back when Schiffty Pete was still crowing about the Bush Boom.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
He saw it in detail, he wasn't just saying general things like "Oh the housing market is going to go down!" And he wasn't the only Austrian economist that saw it coming in detail.
In my opinion, sometimes Schiff is too early, but he is almost always right. I have no problem listening to the economist that is early but right. Especially considering how government intervention is what often delayed what he predicted.
hurryingfred 2 years ago
Actually, Schiffty Pete wasn't all that early. His predictions on the housing bubble took place long after many of us saw it coming and bailed on the banks, REITS, Fannie and Freddy. From what I hear, his Euro Pacific fund is still down sharply. Schiffty has a great PR deparment, though. It'll be interesting to see if the price of gold rises to $5,000 as Schiffty predicted it would. Personally, I'm skeptical.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
Bailed out the banks? He was earlier than that. 2008 was a bad year for him because he invested like it was 2009. That's why he did so great in 2009.
hurryingfred 2 years ago
No, "bailed on the banks". As in sold our bank stocks. Schiffty Pete didn't start talking about the housing bubble until long after Keynesians like Krugman and Roubini figured it out.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
IRONY
is Andrew Jackson on a central bank note
elitebanktyranny 2 years ago
Jesse Ventura - US President
Ron Paul - US Vice President
Peter Schiff - US Treasury
2012 is when real change happens.
xtianmuzic 2 years ago
I would switch Jesse and Ron Paul in your lineup, although that ticket would probably have a better chance.
I like Jesse, he used to be my governor and did a better job than past and present administrations here, but I disagree with him on some fundamental issues.
Either way, that would be great.
bobdole57 2 years ago 2
Peter Schiff - US President
beatbreaka 2 years ago
@xtianmuzic
Man, that's one nice lookin' ticket there...*sigh* too bad it'll never happen!
jawneblaize 2 years ago
curing apathy one video at a time
tickhound 2 years ago
I hope you are not misunderstanding my sarcasm.
PAZ0619 2 years ago
The story that is moving the markets lately is this "supposed" rate hike that will "eventually" come from the Fed. HAHA! Even if it does come, it will be a token gesture like .25% from 0%. BIG DEAL! Of course they'll play it up as much as possible. Oh look Ben is taming future inflation. YEAH RIGHT! Volcker had rates at around 20% in the 70's and this is the greatest recession since the Depression and definitely the largest printing of new money EVER on record. What will rates have to be now?
harveybirdmannequin 2 years ago
Peter - Once again you are spot on.
My guess is gold will never go below $1000 USD/oz for the rest of time. Korea and China are trying to talk gold down so they can buy it on the cheap. When the IMF recently sold 400 tons of Gold, I think the game plan was all the central banks were suppose to stand back and let it flood into the market to drive the price down. However, India broke ranks and snapped it up at what will soon be known as a bargain price
rjm4013Gold 2 years ago
Peter gives me hope for America
codewarrior05 2 years ago 5
That's good news. I'm certain that in a head to head debate you'd wipe the floor with Dodd. I'm hoping to see that!
GuardofLiberty 2 years ago 2
Obama can claim success if in 4 years:
-Gold is still under $1,200
-Unemployment is below 6%
-The gov't has a surplus revenues rather than deficeit spending
Short term fluctuations are not evidence of a successful long term plan.
hailgov 2 years ago 3
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
But... but sir...
I SAID... MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
meshblorg 2 years ago
You're right. When policy makers turn the discussion into a shouting match, you can't wn.
hailgov 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Seems to me that Schiff is jealous of what Obama has done. Gold is about to decline to $900 and Schiff thinks he is the only one that can see the future (if he does say so himself). He is just a negative right wing crazy.
lizardgizard2002 2 years ago
As long as the dollar keeps depreciating, the dollar price of gold will continue its upward trend.
garyragel 2 years ago
Precious metal is being driven down by an artificial correction. The White Shoe Boys are absolutely behind the drop. They can't hold it down forever though and when it pops up again, it will rip free from the dollar. Jealous of Obama? I don't think so.
Shameonfed 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul won.
lindabebe835 2 years ago
Peter -
You are in the right spot at the right time. I won't say that mainstream media coverage isn't important - it is, but not to the degree it used to be. In addition, we're talking about a popular 'uprising' per say.
As wisdom would dictate, 'let the people speak for him'. The groundswell of grassroots support is what is going to carry this candidacy to victory in November, not popular 'mainstream' media support.
Your only worry should be keeping the message clear and consistent.
CCMochi 2 years ago 2
Peter your the best, none of those other candidates are backed by people, there backed by corporations.
I like to see their you tube channel supporters, lol.
hatersfate2 2 years ago 2
PETER SCHIFF for Senator 2010!
RAND PAUL for Senator 2010!
RON PAUL for President 2012!!!
iannetta11 2 years ago 2
Obam is a racist, fascist, narsasitic, wants to destroy America, Obama should be in jail along with Bush, and both parties, Obama is a socialist marksist with so many czars. Obama go ahead and silence me, Glen, Hannity everyone. None of these leaders are the head of the tea party movement. We all are. Be tyranical so people can throw you guys out into the unemployment line. Get lost Obama we hate you.
SDNihil1 2 years ago
You sound like an ignoramus. A "marksist?" Obama's not a Marxist. His economic advisers are former Wall St investment bankers.
Why don't you go watch Hannity and Beck, and leave the economic analysis to the adults.
DrTimWhatley 2 years ago
Schiff for Senate.
crusaderg77 2 years ago 2
I think Bernankes strategy works in a way. Amerika is sucking up german / european jobs in car production (Mercedes). Do you think the cheap dollar can make you more competitive and help save geithner and bernanke?
pcuimac 2 years ago
volume finally sounds good on this vid. thanks schiff
harvey101107 2 years ago
Gold rose today, Is the downturn over?
Vunks2000 2 years ago
Impeccable logic as usual from Mr. Schiff!!!
I would think the people that do not understand Mr. Schiff's simple and logical explanations, must be lacking intelligents.
thomastholin 2 years ago
Please get a better microphone, Peter Schiff.
Thank you for posting these videos. Keep up the good job.
I would like to hear your opinions on the climate treaty negotiations in Copenhagen. (although I can probably guess the main points ;) )
ThorkilKowalski 2 years ago
hahaha -- "Rasputin Poll" -- Hahaha
HereticNix 2 years ago
I looked up ignorance and there was Obama's picture.
homertalk 2 years ago
Obama's is the worst kind of ignorance: he's what is known as an unconscious incompetent--someone who doesn't know, and doesn't know he doesn't know.
acchichi1 2 years ago
Wow, the networks sure have cut down Peter's face time since the Senate run became more serious, I'm sure that's just a coincidence
ShiekYerbooty 2 years ago
You're gonna get Ron Pauled Peter Schiff. The MSM is going to ignore you. Count on that in your campaign strategy.
Ne0mega 2 years ago
Peter, when are you going to rag on the banks, Wll street and rating agencies as much as you rag on the American People?
marniespeaks 2 years ago
At 1:09, Mr. Schiff said,
"Because of the policies he (Obama) is pursuing, we are now on the verge of Great Depression."
Mr. Schiff is not alone in that assessment.
Well-respected economist, John Williams (shadowstats) wrote on June 2, 2009,
"The official actions likely have advanced the timing of the hyperinflation to the much nearer future, perhaps within the next year or two."
I hope people are preparing while they can.
*I'm buying 2-1/2 gram Swiss PAMP gold as Xmas gifts.
KimInLosAngeles 2 years ago
Yeah, Obama is not going to rest like OJ said that he was not going to rest until he found his ex-wife's killer. What a load of PR crap!
Too bad the main stream media is bought and paid for like the politicians and the judiciary. It would be great to see Peter win his race and guys like him. But the sheep far outnumber those that have a much better idea what is going on. This is no reason not to keep trying but Peter shouldn't be surprised how any MSM refers to him.
sambking 2 years ago
booooo chris dud
mreisma 2 years ago
Peter always looks like he just finished a huge delicious dinner.
JoshuaSethComposer 2 years ago 2
Here's one for you Peter -- Jay Leno said this last night:
Spending us out of the recession (trillion in debt) is like giving an alcoholic a bunch of booze and telling him to drink his way out of it.
flahr1 2 years ago
I heard that Ralph Nader's contemplating jumping in the senate race in Connecticut. Has anyone else heard this? Does this hold any water?
wachman 2 years ago
Wow Schiff is getting very popular on here. Beware of temporary deflation. Thinking hyperfinflation in a sure bet is giving Bernanke to much credit. That is what he wants, I dont think he will get it.
TajiTJ 2 years ago
so when is the US dollar finally going to collapse?
marniespeaks 2 years ago
wat wud irelands outlook be like do u no?
jelleeee1 2 years ago
Seems he is an expert investor especially of gold but what does he want to do about our schools, hospitals and social services? Is he gonna take all money out of these things and bring down my property value to zero?
Turbo291 2 years ago
@ Turbo291 - Schiff is for capitalistic health care system. You can look at the campaignforliberty channel his video where he explains why it is the best solution.
Voy2378 2 years ago
wow ! it takes 6 000 exxon mobil companies to pay 1 trillion dollars in tax money.
Am I still in the nightmare?
Jim rogers is right ! we shudn't be calling ourselves grownups if we believe in Sir Nobelpeaceprize
madhuradi 2 years ago
hey people! we need volunteers for the schiff campaign!
ronpaulkid 2 years ago
The fact that the mainstream media is downplaying Peter is the reason why he needs to get into office. No more Washington insiders like Dodd or media darling like Obama who is nothing more than another Bush bought and paid for by the Federal Reserve.
ocpproduct 2 years ago
The media downplays real economists a lot more.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Explain whot a "real" economists is.
ocpproduct 2 years ago
A real economist possesses advanced math skills and applies them to process actual economic data to check for consistency with models, etc. They go where the research leads them, not toward any particular school of economics. If that makes for counter-intutive conclusions, then so be it. Keynesism and monetarism are counter-intuitive, just as is quantum mechanics. Austrians think the economy is like a big accounting identity,but it isn't The same is true about common sense notions and the
Zeldovich 2 years ago
I'm only replying as I see this as a good debate. Not here to flame anyone including yourself.
As an engineer, I agree with you that its rational to use data and check the validity of the model but Wall Street made an arrogant assumption that they could model human behavior. Even with all the advance simulations, engineers still physically test the products (ex. aircrafts) that are designed because we can never assume that we have all the correct data and the model is infallible...contd
ocpproduct 2 years ago
Having said that, economists give opinions based on data and model which is subject to GIGO, their observations of how things work, what they are told and sometimes with some common sense. It's like the bell curve in few can see a pattern before others and just because some people's voice may be in the minority doesn't mean they are not credible. I think Peter's naysayers should come up with a convincing case to convince him that he is wrong. The only thing I've seen are people shaking heads
ocpproduct 2 years ago
It's true that minority opinions can certainly be right, but Schiff's are not. If you read my comments on this page, you'll get a great deal of my perspectives on this. Schiff not only ignores data, but his perspectives aren't even internally consistent.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Continued.
It's the whole domino theory. That if the steel workers aren't spending money, then the grocery store gets less money, which means farmers get less money, which means farm equipment factories get less money, etc...
But this makes no sense. If the efficiency of steel production doubles, this means the price of steel goes down for consumers. If the price of labor falls, this means that consumer prices go down. The economy is better off not worse off, because it is more efficient.
fluff125 2 years ago
There are some problems there. One, wages are sticky on the way down. That's why there's unemployment during recessions.
Two, deflation is self-feeding, in the as expectations of future falls in prices are baked in, people start putting off purchases to wait until they can make them more cheaply. So, money velocity slows and the economy spirals down at an increasing rate.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
That is simply not true. Do you have a cell phone? Why? The price of cell phones goes down every year, why buy one? Why buy a laptop, or a computer? The price is always falling. Deflation doesn't mean the end of the economy.
Deflation means that more people save their money, which means we get more capital investment, which means that in the future we are better off.
So while yes, we go through a tough time in the short term, in the long term we are infinitely better off.
fluff125 2 years ago 2
Deflation within certain segments in a full-or near full-employment is fine. It's overall defation during a recession that's so damaging.
You really, really should take some basic economics courses and then you wouldn't be asking these questions. They are basic answer from econ 101.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Wow. I knew it would come to that. You come on this video and start spouting off random economic terms strait from the textbook, because you finally took a course in economics and you now want to feel superior to other people with your new found knowledge.
Questioning my intelligence is not a valid argument.
And I just think that you should know that, while Microeconomics makes a lot sense, the stuff they teach in Macro in school is all a bunch of gibberish.
fluff125 2 years ago 3
I mentioned your ignorance, not your intelligence.
And I took macro 12 years ago and use it almost everyday.
And you are the one who spouts off about things you know nothing about. You apparently think it's okay to criticize a theory that you're completely unfamilar with and then make comments about me when my perspective is right on this page in my many comments.
You also seem to think you know more than nearly every PhD economist since the '30s. lol
Zeldovich 2 years ago
There we go, you have just shifted the focus of the conversation off of the facts, and onto intelligence. I am no psychologist, but I suspect this is because the entire reason you are on this video is to prove you're intelligence rather than defend the facts. You want to feel smarter than people.
Well I am not going to indulge you. I'll let your psychosis speak for itself and instead engage you on any factual criticism you might make. Fire away.
fluff125 2 years ago 2
Not everyone will put off their purchases for exactly the same time. Some people will prefer to delay the satisfaction of purchasing a product now and pay a little more, and others will place less of a premium on receiving the product now and prefer to either hold their money or spend it elsewhere. A common example is the tech gadget market - some people have to have the newest gadget as soon as it's out and pay more for it, while others will wait for the price to come down to purchase.
garyragel 2 years ago
sigh It's the rate of transactions, not a one off deal.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
gary, no offense, but if you can't even see that this refers to the rate of transactionss, that lets me know you are way out of your depth here. I'm going to take a guess and say you never took calculus, Calculus is all about rates of change with applications.
Either that, or you fail to apply it.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Deflation spiral, in a sense, is overexaggerated. US "suffered" from deflation since the Panic of 1873 to 1896( -1.7% per annum), when it grew as the industrial power. Also, during the depression of 1920-21, prices also fell dramatically from 1919-1921 (~15%)
PAZ0619 2 years ago
You're mixing apples and oranges. Some of the deflation of the late 19th century in the US was caused by economic downturns like the Long Depression. However, there were also deflationary forces that had to do with efficiency gains. You see this with developing economies as the GDP catches up to productive potential.
1919-1921 is different story altogether.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
That recession had to do with economic readjustment after WW1 and changes in monetary and fiscal policy. The deflation was severe compared to the drop in GDP and unemployment(8.7%), due to resources being sidelined during reallocation. Once the shift away from stimulative fiscal and monetary policy began to end, as well as that of private capital and labor inputs, the economy recovered quickly. The money supply was much too tight, among other things.
A deep recession also followed WW2, but
Zeldovich 2 years ago
You sounded like the Fed controlled the money supply back then. The Fed was largely absent in the 1920-1921 Recession.
PAZ0619 2 years ago
sigh. Are you not reading carefully or just not getting it? I stated that the Fed's monetary policy was too tight. That means they didn't expand the money supply.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Actually, the downturn in 1920-21 was due to a contraction of the money supply following a vast increase to fund our involvement in WWI, so the FED's monetary policy was instrumental in that downturn. The reason it was so short-lived was that the federal gov't didn't embark on massive wasteful spending programs and allowed the free market to make the necessary corrections.
garyragel 2 years ago
Oh, you mean my mention of the change in monetary policy could be anything, but a contraction?
Zeldovich 2 years ago
The private sector experienced the single greatest growth spurt in American history in 1946, after the war ended, millions of able-bodied young men returned from Europe and entered the workforce, production shifted away from wasteful war materials toward consumer goods, and arbitrary war-era prices were removed. The growth of GDP during the war was due exclusively to gov't war spending, draining the private sector of capital.
garyragel 2 years ago 2
The recession was in '48
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Which occurred after the fed and treasury tightened their previously too-loose wartime fiscal policies. Again, central bank and Treasury meddling in the money supply, both in loosening and then subsequently tightening the money supply, generated the downturn. And to call it a "deep recession" is disingenuous - GDP fell by less than 2%. (Not that GDP is a great indicator of economic growth, since gov't non-productive, non-free enterprise spending is included in the numbers).
garyragel 2 years ago
Gary, as usual so far, you're quite wrong. It went 2% negative, which is what you meant, I guess, but the actual fall in GDP was the greatest since.
minneapolisfed org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/
Zeldovich 2 years ago
given the nwo permanent higher levels of peace time spending, there was less deflation.
So, in 19-21 and just after WW2, there was a shift from wartime to peace time production with changes in monetary and fiscal policy, which contributed to somewhat severe, but short-lived recessions.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Actually it was -15% deflation in 1920-1921.
PAZ0619 2 years ago
I didn't offer a deflation number.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
But you did implied that sharp deflation is a bane of all existence.
PAZ0619 2 years ago
I never implied it in any way. I was very specific. Deflation due to the supply of money failing to meet demand is dangerous. Other causes are in some cases, and aren't in others. I have a page full of comments here and you're completely wrong about everything I've written about deflation.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Well it depends on your definition of inflation.
PAZ0619 2 years ago
If there is too little currency to chase an increasing number of goods, prices will fall, resulting in the currency appreciating in buying power and contributing to an increase in capital investment and an increase in the quality of life for the populace. The US experienced gentle overall price deflation in the early to mid 1800's, and these years saw some of the greatest increases in economic growth in our history.
garyragel 2 years ago
No, the rate of transactions goes down and prices continue to fall, so output goes down and there's more unemployment, etc. This is basic economics. You may as well say that gravity is a force we struggle against to keep ourselves on the earth.
Look up the research for God's sake. This is basic!
Zeldovich 2 years ago
If wages were allowed to fall in line with the decrease in the price of goods, jobs would be preserved. This can only work, however, with a currency that instead of continually losing value due to central bank-fueled inflation, gradually increases in value.
garyragel 2 years ago
Actually, it is the "stickiness" of wages that is one of the fundamental principles of Keynesian economic theory. It has nothing to do with currency translations.
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
And it's that same "stickiness" that has contributed to the continual reduction in real wages, reducing the standard of living for the working classes.
garyragel 2 years ago
Say what? You think that the fact that nominal wages haven't declined has reduced the living standards of the working class? Sound like an oxymoron to me. Do you think it might have something to do with shifting the tax burden away from capital and on to labor as we did under Trickle Down Reaganomics and the Bush tax cuts? Do you think it might have something to do with subsidizing foreign manufacturing?
AtlasShruggery 2 years ago
While nominal wages haven't been allowed to fall, real wages have continued to fall due to the pernicious effects of inflation, the most insidious, underhanded tax on the American people. Low taxes are always good, but the major problem with Reagan and Bush's policies were that they both greatly expanded gov't spending, and provided corporate subsidies to favored interests, diverting funds from productive sectors of the economy and draining those sectors of capital.
garyragel 2 years ago
Also, Keynsian's don't understand what government spending does. They assume that if the government spends money, it creates jobs. This ignores the fact the when the government spends money, it must first TAKE the money. So while they create a job in the government sector, they destroy one in the private sector.
If the government borrows the money, that means that there is less money for entrepreneurs to borrow to build factories and provide future production. So it retards the economies growth
fluff125 2 years ago 3
No. You're focusing on the wrong things. If the government takes money that'd normally be saved on average during a recession and spends it, it raises money velocity which is the goal of any stimulus. get the money moving at full employment rates and the economy will reallocate the malinvestment as rapidly as possible.
it makes no sense to say that the economy can best perform this reallocation with high unemployment and idle resources. Those workers need to work and resoures liquidated.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Now you're stating fallacies. If the government spends saved money and increases the marginal propensity to consume, this means that less money is being saved. If less money is being saved, then we get higher interest rates and less capital investment.
A man in a bulldozer does much more work than a man with a shovel, so he can be paid more. But only because he has the bulldozer. Where did the bulldozer come from? Somebody somewhere saved their money, and loaned it to the man to buy it.
fluff125 2 years ago
No, interest rates only go up in that case if the economy's at full employment or if the money supply falls behind demand.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Hey Zeldovich. I'm going to hire you to help me to down the block and break peoples windows. Tomorrow, everybody will have to go out and buy a new window, which will employ the glassmaker, which will make more money for glassmakers tools, and more money for his grocery store, which will employ a lot of people.
Does that sound like good economics to you? That is essentially what you are saying, but you hide behind terms like "full employment" and "money supply" so you don't sound stupid.
fluff125 2 years ago
No, you just don't understand basic economics or the Keynesianism you think you're criticizing. You should probably learn the ins and outs of a theory you criticize all the time.
And me breaking windows to put people to work is different than biilding something new. The latter doesn't destroy assets and employs capital to help bring everyone out of recession so they uemployment can go down and the economy is more productive.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Yes but it makes things less efficient. You bum. If you employ ten people to do a five man job you are WASTING money. Those extra five people may as well be digging holes and filling them up again.
And that is EXACTLY what the government does when it spends money to employ people. It does it inefficiently at massive loss to the taxpayer. It's not about employment, it's about production.
fluff125 2 years ago 2
Well, if you mean it can create some inflation, if not net inflation,then you're right. That's where the inefficiency turns up. But, it doesn't work that way during recessionary deflation.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Not to mention he is talking about building/making useless junk.
PAZ0619 2 years ago
I must correct you a little bit. You mean proper allocation of employment, which would lead to increased efficiency of work/production.
PAZ0619 2 years ago
uncertainty principle. Before that concept was developed, there was an implicit, though unnoticed assumption that momentum, position,etc could be determined simultaneously.
Zeldovich 2 years ago
Great video Peter, thank you again for your firm,you have made me a lot of money
seks03 2 years ago
Nice video Peter
1beinki 2 years ago
It is obvious the establishment (like they treated Ron Paul) trying to dimiss everyone who doesn't want to tax and spend as a marginal outside figure.