Peter Schiff on Fox about wages Let them eat cake: ." [The minimum wage] keeps people poor. [It] does is says that if a person that has very little skills, and generally they're young or they're poor, you can't hire them unless they can produce $7.25 worth of value, but it's not just that. It also has to compensate you for all the mandatory benefits and taxes ...And people that have no skills, it's not just worth it to hire them -- maybe $3 or $4 an hour, if that's what they're worth".
In fact, serious problems occur when the government tries to set prices. The minimum wage, for example, eliminated a slew of low-paying jobs (full service gas stations, dishwashers, shoe-shiners, etc.) and has made it harder for teenage minorities to find employment. Nixon's price controls created huge lines for gasoline in the 70's.
Which is more important, speculating on when the Titanic will sink, or getting off the ship? Highly recommend watching the YouTube video WHY WE ARE IN SO MUCH DEBT. It provides the simplest and clearest explanation yet of why our money is robbing us of prosperity.
I also believe in a goverment controlled central bank, all countries use them, but the problem with the FED is that it's PRIVATE! Also, there is no public insight or control of how much money the FED is creating out of thin air.
Central banking is a failed experiment. It causes the financial sector to slowly destroy itself, and it doesn't even keep it stable. It would be much better to have free banking. A little short term instability, is a small price to pay for an indefinitely sustainable banking system.
@twk373 Ideally yes. The only problem is that it puts more responsibility on the bank customer to evaluate the financial secuity of their bank. On failing to do so, this short term instability you're talking about may be devastating for the customer as all his/her money goes up in smoke with no safety from a central bank. I hear what you're saying, but can you really assume people are smart enough to spread their risks? A good central bank should not only guarantee safety but also put pressure.
Consumers evaluate everything else they do/buy, and there's usually third party organizations that help them, like Consumer Reports. That's actually a good thing, not a problem, because they actually care about the safety of their money, so are more likely to make a good judgement. Whereas the politicians don't care. Also, the point is moot, as the central bankers have already failed miserably at evaluating financial security. Of course consumers would do it better.
Imagine we had free banking. The first thing I would do is buy insurance on my deposit. Problem solved. Now, I'm sure the insurance companies would be rating the banks too, and I would be able to lower my premiums by switching to a safer bank. Problem solved x2. And of course people are smart! Regular people make other kinds of investments all the time. Bank deposits are no different. Anyway, I think the "stupid people need government management" argument is specious.
That's what they said in America just a few years ago. Look, I can guarantee that any system being centrally managed by politicians or bureaucrats is unsustainable. It's easy to show: eventually the managers will make a mistake, just like ordinary people make mistakes in the free market. It happens. The difference is that in the free market, mistakes lose people money, so they're incentivized to correct them.
Whereas in the government, there's no incentive, because there are no immediate consequences to the politicians for making a bad economic decision. In fact, the incentive is to ignore/cover up mistakes, because politicians who bring bad news tend to not get reelected. Thus, in centrally managed economies, structural errors pile up continually until the politicians can't hide them anymore, and there's a gigantic crash. In a free economy, errors do not pile up.
@twk373 Ok, I admit you have a very good point on "loan guarantees" or whatever it's called in english. I agree to some part of what your saying about incentives too, and that third party organisations can help the customer to make goo decisions and spreading their risks, but still I think the ability for a gouvernment to be able to set the interest rates is a good tool for evening out the fluctuations in the economoy. Making companies save more during good years and spend more during bad ones.
But how does the government know what the interest rates should be? That's the trick. The rate of interest = price of money. In that sense it's no different from the price of a t-shirt or the price of a car or the price of a gallon of milk. The government can't know what the price for any of these things should be, because there is no "correct" price. The price is whatever buyers and sellers agree.
The same goes for controlling the price of money, except the problems are far more insidious. The main problem is that with fiat currency, you can't have a 'shortage' of money. So when the Fed sets interest rates too low (as it inevitably does), you don't run out of money to loan (like you would if the dollar was tied to gold). Instead, money is just magicked out of thin air. But this just debases its value while tricking people into thinking that the economy is prospering.
Just as the government can't know what the price of an iPhone should be, it can't know what the price of money should be. Politicians don't know how much money people should save, how much they should invest, and how much they should spend. Because there is no "should." The only "should" is that people should be free to make their own decisions.
As far as using currency manipulation to reduce economic fluctuation, it doesn't work. History proves this. We had recessions (then called depressions) before the Federal Reserve. The Fed immediately created the Great Depression by setting rates too low. And we've still had recessions ever since.
@twk373 The price of money can be set quite easily to have the desired effects on fluctuations. It has been exerimented with through several decades and works quite well in most countries. However I agree that you have a BIG problem in the US because of the FED which is private and works without public insight /transparancy. Also the US is a special case I admit because of the Petro-dollar recycling with the US dollar as main reserve currency.
Fluctuations aren't bad, and just because an effect is desired doesn't mean it's right. Saying that it works well in other countries doesn't mean anything, because you're not accounting for the opportunity cost. A country with free banking would experience greater growth and prosperity than a country with central banking.
@twk373 A combination of these two facts, that is, a private central bank and the US dollar as reserve currency, has allowed the FED to irresponibly print enormous amounts of money creating the biggest bubble, if you will, of them all. It will break as soon as the rest of the world get's fed up feeding money into a system that devalues it. As soon as a new reserve currency has been found or oil stops selling in US dolalrs, the US economy will collapse.
@InfomaniacJack The best thing to do right now for the US is increasing domestic production through stimulus not involving too much printing of money, but rather adjusting taxes in diffrent sectors. Increasing taxes in the financial sector and lowerin them for buisnesses that produce goods.
@InfomaniacJack Also, the best way for china to "get out" of the dollar without loosing half of there money dooing so and setting their biggest tradepartner (the US) in a state of chaos, would be for china to start investing in US production companies while letting their currency rise in value. Eventually the chinese will have to start consuming imported products anyways.
Yes, you're right about the Fed and the reserve currency. America is on the verge of collapse now. The dollar is only the reserve currency because of inertia.
I think page826 is correct here. Peter Schiffs and Ron Paul say a lot of true things but you can't bring about their type of change too quickly, at least not against those who can't afford it. That would indeed create chaos. The banks are the ones who need to b held in a shorter leash.
@page826 Wow you use to sound smart now your sounding ignorant and arrogant. The soviet collapsed this way you know in afghanistan by printing money and with a huge goverment and lots of sevice workers no real standing army defeated them they collapsed under there own system. The US is socialist now if you havent noticed health care, real estate, education, and welfare systems not too mention huge millatart around the world.
@jezza1789 You never get my points right! Again I think we both agree the eventual outcome. The US is declining for sure. The bubble economy cannot go on forever. Every person on this planet will agree with that. I just suggest that the US dollar weakness and debt problem are not as serious as you think. There're still a lot of values in the US dollar. So I actually agreed with Krugman, it's okay to print money and create make-work gov. projects to keep people employed in the SHORT TERM.
@jezza1789 but of course in the long run, once the US goes out of the emergency room, it will need to change its course and do things that Peter Schiff, marc faber, jim rogers, ron paul and the likes are advocating. Cut spending, saving, small government, manufacturing blah blah blah, we all know that. The problem is people like you keep blasting other opinions without even thinking for a second. I agree with the "REAL" solution but we just need the temporary fix as badly.
@jezza1789 Ok so do you think there is another army that can crush the US face to face? They lost because they are not fighting an actual war. They are trying to maintain control and occupation of a foreign country and that's why they can never retreat.
@page826 A King can always consume and ask other people to produce for him, as long as no one challenge its position as a King, and no one has the power to overthrow him. The US is still the King as of today. It controls oil and the monetary system. In theory, the US does not need to produce.
@jezza1789 they need to stay there because the US need to continue to control the natural resources there and protect the petro dollar. They are not really defeated physically.
@page826 I understand what your saying the world is changing, Asia is the new power they have the money. What im trying to say is like the two before Stimulus DONT WORK in the end we will collapse harder with food shortages, no economy and a huge debt. If we collapse now we still have a chance btw China and Asia will be like the US and Europe.
@page826 It cant turn productive all of the sudden dont you get it we are bankrupt as a nation were living out off foreign money to buy foreign products stimulus saves banks we need a painful correction to correct the imbalances and become a production power. If it werent for Bush and Obama bailouts we wouldve been done with a brief recission.
@jezza1789 you said it "if it weren't for bush and obama... a brief recession", but that's exactly what I am trying to argue! YES, we did make the mistakes but they cannot be undone now. We need to respond according to the current situation. If it is in 2000 I will say let it collapses and allow the economy to recover by itself. But not after the ultimate housing bubble, the economy won't receover by itself.
@jezza1789 What you don't understand is that Japan didn't have a world reserve currency. The US has a currency that is backed by oil and the strongest military power on earth (at least people think it is). The US dollar collapse is not as inminent as many of you suggested. The US debt is bad but not worse than the European debt level. We cannot have a proper debate until you have a real understanding of the CURRENT world political and financial structure.
@page826 No other countries in the World can stimulate or consume its way out, but the mighty US does have a chance. It is still the KING in the world at this moment, because the US still in control of the oil and natural resources, they still have a super military power. Japan didn't have all these so they can only produce. Ok I am getting tired because you will never get it.
@page826 Im sorry but in my opinion your idea sounds childish. The world has been thru many cycles and goverment intervention has made it worse. Japan did the same in the 90s the system collapsed anyway they stoped sooner than later though. You cant stimulate forever thinking youll get out of the problem if it werent for Chinas loans we wouldve collapsed since were so dependent on foreign products our money is just paper printing wont make us richer.
@page826 The only thing i recognize is that your solution isnt working the trade deficits are getting bigger, inflation is rising, and no production jobs (which made the US rich) are being created. How will we export things to the chinese to pay them back for all the money loaned with new goverment jobs come on think alittle.
@jezza1789 Ok. Imo, the US should keep the stimulus, unemployment, and gov. spending, invest in infrastructure (they already did), invest in alternative energy by providing a lot of gov. incentives for businesses (they already did), and let's hope it will grow into a real productive industry, AND THEN cut back gov. spending, repay the debt, reduce social benefits, and gradually transform from a service economy to a productive one.
@jezza1789 According to Mr. Schiff, we should raise interest rate and cut unemployment benefits now. All of a sudden the system collapses and goes into a depression mode with depressed demand, expensive credits, businesses will be risk-adverse and reluctant to invest. Capitals will simply move to China and invest in their economy. How can the US turn into a productive economy all of a sudden? I just want to argue that temporary fixes are necessary.
@Page826 Your right the US is in worse shape than the 20s and you know why because after the dot com bubble Bush passed a 400 billion stimulus which created the housing bubble imstead of a brief recession, the stimulus created the housing bubble americans taught they were in hollywood buying houses they couldnt afford. After the burst Obama didnt let the market balance itself out and passed a 700 billion which isnt working, whats next a trillion $ bailout
@Page826 Unemployement makes people lazy like a spoiled child. I know many people on it dont bother to look for work. You think all that cheap credit that evaporated and you think the economy or people shiuldnt suffer you oviously know nothing of economic cycles they been around since the bible days upswings and famin goverments cant stop or prevent them do your history, by the way the US has a 13 trillion debt.
I know you are for a total collapse of the system and to rebuild a new one. But who can be responsible for the risks of casuing a total chaos. For example, can you imagine that the chaos may get out of control and turn US into anarchy? Millions of people lost their jobs and home without government benefits will likely become gangsters and rioters. Can you stand in front of them and say "go find a job, save money and buy a new home"? Your ideas are morally right but just impossible.
@page826 You know nothing about the economy or the history of it. Slamming on the breaks is the best thing to do goverments cant control the market supply and demand imbalances espeacially the US huge global economy look at history they tried before. The money needs to go to the depressed areas like demanded commodities not start bubbles like it did after the Bush bail outs how can you possible think itll work right after the first stimulus didnt.
@jezza1789 No, I think you underestimated the magnitude of the US's current problem. Even back in the 20s the US was still in a relatively good shape before going into the depression. At least the middle class didn't suffer from serious credit card debts.
@jezza1789 Pls also read my comments carefully, I never say cheap credits will cure the problem. It will worsen the problem just like you claimed. HOWEVER, it is neccessary to keep bumping credits during the transitory period. The US NEEDS a new direction but not a sharp turn like you suggested because I am quite sure that it will cause a total chaos. It needs a steady hand to steer its way out, not like crazy driver.
@jezza1789 If you did study history and world economy extensively, you should also recognize that the situations were not the same everytime. You need to understand the current conditions and apply solutions accordingly. Looking answers from textbooks are "bad for my nervous system".
We all know that painkillers can never cure the problem and they are bad for health in general, but we still need to take them under emergent situation like this. Like George Soros put it, when you r driving on slow and your car skids, you can't make a sharp turn and hope that the car will go into the other direction right away. In reality, you need to allow the car to go further into the wrong direction, and slowly steer the wheel. Slaming the brake is the last thing u want to do.
Dear Mr. Schiff, I've been following your economic advises and I found one major problem. Your advises are good for the US in the long run, but they are not very practical. It's like telling a near-death patient to get up, take a yoga class and eat healthy. They r good for ppl in normal health conditions, not for dying patients. For example if you cut unemployment benefits now, do you think these ppl can find jobs in the near future? If not, what will happen to all these unemployed ppl?
Schiff seems to be one of the few economists who "gets" it. It is time for our countries people to wake up and stop following what wall street and our government wants us to believe. Join the conversation and help spread the word at our website, we need the truth to be heard!
Peter, you've always been bullish on gold. What do you think about silver, long term and short term? Given the high possibility of the double-dip and the fact that, unlike gold, silver has more industrial applications, do you expect a reversal of the current silver trend?
Pete, buddy, your attack dog Michael Pento just tore Erin Burnett's ass off. Now don't get me wrong, I'd like to take a bite of that ass too......"Michael you are so rude!" LMAO
This country can only compete & produce goods if they are willing to work for less money for companies willing to employ american workers & those tax cuts or credits go to those companies that can do this here. All the large companies are all based here but they manufacture in countries with no regulation & low wage workers. We are the consumers of those very goods that our companies shipped offshore to make more for themselves & you bye it. Stop shopping for more stuff you don't need & save.
@TheLivingDeadOne That is correct however there is an important thing to add. when you say that american workers have to accept lower wages you are right but really they have to accept less gov, in other words between income tax, ss,med, sales tax, state tax, and most of all the inflation tax, american workers are really only keeping 30% of their earnings, so if americans accept less gov that alone would cut wages by 60% or so without a real decrease, then any decrease above that is gravy
Hi Peter. I agree on most things you say and I can't understand why not more people saw this coming. BUT, and this is important, you need to recognize that a large part of this stimulus package is aimed at building infrastructure, which in turn will reduce your need of oil, ie goods, while at the same time catching up with other countries in terms of transport and energy production.
To prove your case you should state how much US Debt is owed to the Chinese and how much is owed to large International Banks. Have a feeling that Banks bought a lot of debt at good rates in return for a zero-interest loan.
I struggle with Peter's insistence that we need manufacturing jobs (@0:35). Neither he nor any other single person knows what the economy needs. The free market will decide. Maybe there is a future in services.
Peter says service jobs lead to a trade deficit, but I suspect the whole notion of a trade deficit is BS. Governments (i.e. nations) don't trade. People trade.
@RangerKozak look at what PPP does in the country, people in the US are forced to buy and use imported goods from other countries b/c it costs more to produce or get the goods here. KVIs need to be adjusted in this country and service jobs have to be reduced in order for us to get the right PPP #'s. to strengthen the economy we need to balance service jobs and manufacturing jobs. too much of 1 thing is never good, it either creates unneeded dependency or lacks us mutually beneficial trades
In order to conduct trade, you must make (i.e., manufacture) something that other people want. Currently, the US imports manufactured goods from the rest of the world, and exports worthless dollars. The entire idea is that someday, eventually, the world will be able to convert those dollars into US manufactured goods. Thus, the US needs more (far more) manufacturing jobs.
you just have to pick the right time to buy and sell $. think the opposite. most of the time when people start buying $ seeing that the economy is doing well it is actually the bad time to buy it. when stuff goes down that's when you want to put your money in $. take care of your portfolio smartly, diversify it. don't be greedy, be safe. unless you have extra bucks to gamble.
I agree with everything you're saying Peter...but your case for keeping the tax cuts for the very rich doesn't make sense to me. They all ready have enough in savings. Who cares if they can save more? I'm afraid that I'm leaning towards a more progressive tax plan as long as the Gov. reduces debt instead of blowing it on free credit.
By tinkering with the price and supply of money, we're really tinkering with the price of everything in the economy. It's just a numbers game. There are actual physical resources that need to be re-allocated, but it will never happen if we just mess around with the numbers on a computer at the Fed
the GI bill, really? wow. if troops see this, those kooky unemployed people are gonna seem like a mosquito bite. screw giving them a college education and get them into manufacturing jobs where we can keep have them for low paid drones? i hope you have bought enough gold and silver to hire a lot of security, cuz if this video makes the rounds at military bases....i feel for you. im a keynesian who just wildly disagrees, but pissing on the GI bill like that seems like a deathwish. wow pete!!
While I agree with you in general Peter, I think it's only fair to point out that 'Service' jobs is too broad of a definition. I have a problem with how you use it as something that's opposite of production jobs. Consider a typical IT startup that offers service. Technically it's production jobs but because their service could be a website or an appliance, it's most likely be counted towards Services. So I think it's fair to further break down the Services and then go from there.
@aryanc77 screw the unemployment rate, do you wish to see them continuing on burning our money pointlessly on the wars? we will just need to focus on producing tangible stuff and reducing services to fix the unemployment problem. and people need to be forced to look for a job instead of waiting for free money from the gov't.
@LeeRyan2930 good view , just wanted a lil feedback on the thought , and your already sounding like schiff ... , i'm just doing a study and going trough a beginner economic text book .... and put the question to fish around ..thanks for post
@aryanc77 we need to take care of the wars seriously, end them ASAP. it's no whatever issue that can be delayed. people don't tend to get this. it's huge $ we're dealing with here. if we pay attention to these non-sense wars and the expenses we cover yearly on the watchdog globally as we did for BP oil spill, we can stop the wars and prevent them from happening again in the future. people just need to realize how big of a deal the wars are costing and killing us. btw it cool. keep on learning.
@LeeRyan2930 a question , what about subsidies that we give by robbing the poor to feed the rich , the Medicare system pays for the education of Medics , later these people are so affluent earning in excess of 300K and who are they milking it from the very same people that funded their education ? I know we have a progressive tax system , but its this same affluent section that invests in tax free avenues and the result is that to the tax man they are another lower middle class family ??
@aryanc77 we have a long way to go with Medicare. I'm not a fan of Obama but he's started a good thing with the health care. it's far from what people need but we're heading into the right direction. you don't think about money first when it comes to crucial change. what we need is a better quality and full coverage health care plan. on a bad note, all the taxes will cost us some money but what's worse is it will hurt the economy even more and the poor will suffer more. yes, tax should be less.
Islamofascist OPEC knows they have America over a barrel if they decide to sell oil in competing currencies thus putting an end to Americas sweet deal of infinite money creation and diluting the domestic effects globaly by way of every countries need to purchase oil with US dollars.
No meaningful US movement on adopting planet friendly alternative energy as long as it threatens Americas lucrative money printing scheme.
the solution is not to nationalise which would surely create a massive spending disaster. rather get rid of the AMA and other such organizations which are keeping a lid on supply of doctors like an oil cartel.
Ramp up the supply of doctors, nurses, surgeons and dentists and prices will fall to affordable levels.
Good job Peter. Love your straight forward talk. Please keep it coming. It's never too late for common sense to prevail. Yeah yeah. I also love the "needs a compass" comment. haha. Terrific. Only comment I have is OF COURSE YOU ARE BANG ON CORRECT!!
Let's say the "decoupling" if I interpret it correctly you mean -- of no significance economically-- comes one hundred years from now. Are you still "right"?
I am glad that when people say you are wrong you respond to them and defend your views. It really helps to solidify your points when you answer critics. It seems like sometimes your predictions are early so it may appear to some that you are wrong.
@andylowings you aren't seeing hyperinflation, not yet anyhow. The Chinese are still manipulating their currency, propping it up. However, in other net exporting countries we are seeing the dollar near 10 year lows, Chile for example. Also the spread on Gold and Silver vs. the dollar has never been this big.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wow, is he really making the argument that he wasn't wrong, everyone else was, and that's why he was wrong?
Talk about full of yourself, Schiff.
And please look at the unemployment rates of people with college degrees versus people without. Giving vets the ability to get college degrees IS helping them get "real" jobs. What do you expect them to do?
Honest question, what do you consider a "real" job?
@shalcall Yes, that is precisely my argument. All the people who thought the U.S. economy was in great shape just before it crashed (which was just about everyone) also made the mistake of buying the dollar after it did. Given where the dollar is today, verses gold or other currencies, it should already be obvious that buying the dollar in late 08, early 09 was a mistake. Soon it will be revealed to have been a fatal mistake.
First, thanks for replying. I did not expect that.
Second, I simply disagree with you. We'll see who's right by 2012. I honestly believe that both gold and silver are currently experiencing speculative bubbles, partially due to statements like yours and with many European countries turning towards austerity, the U.S. greenback will continue to be bought.
@shalcall Buying dollars in late 08 or early 09 was like buying condos in Miami in 2006 or Dot com stocks in 1999. People who bought dollars as a safe haven were wrong. My only mistake (if you can even call it a mistake) was not anticipating that so many others would get it so completely wrong. If you still have not figured that out you are in for a rude awakening.
@SchiffReport No, you are wrong here. There is a perfectly rational explanation to it. It is called cross currency swaps, from the Fed to other central banks. The Fed was slow in extending them in 2008, which caused the rise of the USD, and quick in 2010, when the Greek crisis appeared. This is hardly something new. Jacques Rueff in the '60s wrote extensively about these swaps and how they worked in the '20s, to sustain the value of the pound sterling.
@SchiffReport No, you are wrong here. There is a perfectly rational explanation to it. It is called cross currency swaps, from the Fed to other central banks. The Fed was slow in extending them in 2008, which caused the rise of the USD, and quick in 2010, when the Greek crisis appeared. This is hardly something new. Jacques Rueff in the '60s wrote extensively about these swaps and how they worked in the '20s, to sustain the value of the pound sterling.
@shalcall A college degree is worthless in many fields now, and that won't change anytime soon. Production skills, mechanical skills, agricultural knowledge, many of these disciplines are way more growth friendly than liberal arts degrees. Actually, a lot of training the military provides now may better prepare vets for jobs than a college degree.
@pretorious700 in reality, a college degree is far from useless if you wish to be employed in this country. According to the BLS, last month unemployment among people with a BA or higher was 4.6%. Compare that with unemployment for people with an associates (8.7%), or just a High School diploma (10.3%).
College degrees are far from worthless, and any objective look at the job market for those with liberal arts degrees will show that.
@shalcall He knows what he's doing! He knows whats really going on he has plenty of forecasters that work for him. Look at his video from "southland today'' in 2002. He explains himself how brokers on tv are touting buying stocks when the brokers themselves are actually trying to sell. His long term views are right but short term he knows its overdue for a correction.
@shalcall He knows what he's doing! He knows whats really going on he has plenty of forecasters that work for him. Look at his video from "southland today'' in 2002. He explains himself how brokers on tv are touting buying stocks when the brokers themselves are actually trying to sell. His long term views are right but short term he knows its overdue for a correction.
@shalcall - the guy is talking economics. We are going through an economic crisis. Liberal arts are great, and service sector jobs terrific, but this guy is pointing out ECONOMIC implications of these things being over represented and retarded by government intervention (happens to be WRONG DIRECTION when yer in the middle of economic crisis). Unfortunately part of problem is abundance of left wing or ignorant types supporting politicians who are are making problem worse.
@paulemeany I totally understand what he's talking about. I have a masters in economics. I just happen to disagree with him. To be fair, I happen to often disagree with those analysts that fall in line with the economists at George Mason University, and Austrian economics in general.
And Krugman, Bernanke and Greenspan know what the f*ck they are doing. An economics degree is pretty much worthless, except how you can use it to make money for yourself. If it were really valuable, most economists would be gazillionaires playing the markets. Instead most of them pound sand at universities all day making chump change and waiting for tenure so don't have to do real work.
@666sigma There are economists that deal with market forecasts, and economists that deal with the macro outlook. And economists that work at wall street firms do make boatloads of money. Krugman, Bernanke, and Greenspan are looking at the overall economy, not just the publicly traded private sector.
Also, Greenspan and Krugman are on the opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to economic theory. Bernanke was pretty much a neo-Keynesian while at Princeton. Not so much now.
And there twenty times as many people doing the same job on wall street without the bogus economics degree. Greenspan, Bernanke and Krugman are all neo-Keynesians. You slap whatever label you want on them, but they all want to inflate the bubble.
Only a moron could not see that America has more than enough consumption. It lacks production. You can't borrow and spend or print and spend while continuing to outsource jobs. They are all idiots.
@666sigma I agree that they are on the wrong track but why? Surely they have the ability to see Peter's logic but yet they still keep going the wrong way. Why?What's their motivation?
@shalcall What the fuck are you talking about. It seems like you're implying that supply side economics is a school of thought, or a line of reasoning. It's a political brand name for reforms proposed by the republicans during the 70s and 80s. That's a pretty darn narrow school of thought, and with no linear structure within it.
Anyway, the supply you can change, the demand in this case can change with lower wages. Do you want a lower wage? No, didn't think so.
@Visfen I'm not talking about supply side or trickle down economics. I'm talking about supply vs. demand. You said that we need investments in capital and not our labor force. Capital and labor are both components of production. They are both critical to the supply side of the market.
I'm saying that our problem right now is not with the supply side. I'm saying our problem is a lack of demand. It's complex because everything in this economy is interconnected, so it's not black and white.
The reason America was the biggest industrial power for most of the 20th century was our capital. Labor is easy and cheap. Anyone can work in manufacturing. Now, management is a different story, but fortunately you don't need as many managers, relatively.
Also, what does it mean to say that we have a "lack" of demand? Demand, generally speaking, is infinite. That's why free market economies tend to grow perpetually; there's always more demand to be filled.
@twk373 No, the reason America was the biggest industrial power for most of the 20th century was because the rest of the world's capital AND labor was devastated by WW2. In fact, before the 1970's many studies show that the U.S. economy was actually more labor intensive than most economists thought.
Also, in the real world, your demand is restricted by income. You can desire everything in the world, but you can only purchase so much. So I mean demand given a monetary constraint.
Fair enough, but the point is that infinite demand causes supply to perpetually increase. So income grows for large t, because supply grows for large t. This is why Americans have a much higher standard of living than do Zimbabweans. It's an issue of what the economy is able to supply, not what people are able to demand. And supply is based on capital. (Labor, too, of course, but people are easy to make--capital isn't.)
@twk373 heh, people are easy to make? Tell that to the Western Europeans who seem to be having a difficult time making them.
While I think your view is understandably over simplified (due to the character limit) I agree that what the economy is able to supply is a huge factor in growth. However that's not the case when the economy is depressed. We are not producing what our economy has the potential to produce. The rules are different when we are not at full output.
Europe has an easy solution for that: immigration.
Anyway, I'm not completely disagreeing with you. But I don't think it's meaningful to talk about things like the economy being "depressed" or what its "potential" or "full output" is. Depressions just mean there were a bunch of malinvestments that need to be worked out. And economic output is in constant flux.
@shalcall No, the problem is never a lack of demand, learn Say's law and Walras' law. They debunk Keynes underconsumptious theory.
Say's law was postulated like a hundred years before Keynes even came along. You're just rehashing old myths It makes as much sense as me standing here telling you the earth is flat.
The problem is that the structure of production is tilted and the pattern of allocation does not suit the actual demand. The problem is not a lack of aggregate demand.
The great thing about economics is that, unlike any kind of serious technical subject, economics can be understood by anyone who is 1) human and 2) not any economist. Economics derives from market behavior, and market behavior derives from human behavior. Any human can tell you that demand is infinite. Any human can tell you that buyers want low prices and sellers want high prices. Any human can tell you that he is the best arbiter of his own self-interest. Etc.
@shalcall Sure we could be! What a moronic statement. The law lays out the first important things to understand about a recession.
Yes, it looks like aggregate demand is going down, because the measurable effect of it is that. But the real reason is that we have too many products of some sorts and too few of others.
Today we have too little agriculture, industrial and resource production. While there is too many services, too much consumption, too many houses.
@shalcall Keynes is utter and complete nonsense. If you actually read economics, starting in the 19th century like a normal person would do with any other subject (like when you read phyics or math, you don't start with string theory or Gausian normal distribution).
Say got the "law" named after him from debating it so much, all the criticism Keynes raise was already debunked, in General theory of Employment and Interest he makes a strawman of the law.
@Visfen scholars make advancements in subjects over time. Bohr's model of the atom is wrong, even though it's a great teaching tool. Homosexuality isn't a psychological disorder. The world isn't flat and Say and Walrus are 150 years behind in economic theory.
@shalcall Yeah, they do, but newer is not always better. Nothing in Keynes criticism is new. Keynesianism is not new. It's rehashed underconsumptious, protectionists, statist myths.
If you don't believe science can be wrong if it is newer, then you don't believe in the scientific method.
Can you tell me why walrus law and say's law don't debunk Keynes theory? Can anyone? I've been asking this question for about 10 months now and I debate the subject all the time. I haven't gotten ANY ANSWERS.
@shalcall About 60-70 years ago the economic school went on a wrong path. In the 70s and 80s it rebounded somewhat and we've seen concessions made.
The reason why this is the case is quite simple. The market for macro economics is the government, but it's also supposed to be the check and balance. So what these ideas do is provide cover for bailouts and handouts to voters, while in and of themselves they really hold no intellectual substance. That's why they survive.
@Visfen You don't get any answers because you are set in your ways. You can look up peer reviewed articles in econlit or another scholarly journal through JSTOR to show you how real world observations do not fit predictions from Say or Walras but somehow I think you'll find some way to excuse those deviations.
As for your conspiratorial theory of government influencing macro economic theory, well, it's conspiratorial.
@shalcall Set in my ways? 4 years ago I was just like you, a moronic liberal.
No it's not a conspiracy it's a fact. You don't think the Soviet Union had economists suggesting their economy was doing fine? Fuck there were Keynesians suggesting that in the US. People indistinguishable from Paul Krugman said that in 89.
What scientific articles are you referencing here? Show them to me and I can take a look at it. Making broad references is the same as making none.
@shalcall well who u call "everyone else" are the mainstream Keynesian economists. Other Austrian/free market economists who are on the fringe agree with Peter Schiff's points and so just because Peter Schiff doesn't speak in line with the other wall street cheerleaders frequently invited on Fox Business or CNBC doesn't mean there's no truth in what he's saying nor is he alone.
Peter i am hurt you didn't win the primary. America needs more politicians like you. I was scared that if you did become a politician you would act like a politician... I'm sure you wouldn't and you have great views, thanks for your vids
Part 2. You need barriers because corporation will keep relocating for cheap labor leaving behind people unemployed and up to their necks in debt and the cycle keeps going. Low wages = strikes = unions = corporate relocation = destruction of ones economy. You can have free trade, but not with cheap labor country's. It's even destroys country's like China because it uproots people from rural areas and put a strain on resources.
Wrong again, companies actually avoid outsourcing whenever possible. Why? Because US workers have access to capital, education, infrastructure that cheap third-world labor doesn't. Outsourcing means building new capital, training new people, and then shipping stuff across the ocean! Outsourcing is, ironically, a direct consequence of foolish labor regulations that make hiring American workers prohibitively expensive. Repeal the labor regulations and the jobs will all come back.
@twk373 Wow you're so wrong because if you could only open your eyes you would see companies have actually relocated due to the reasons I mentioned. The manufacturing companies in China are mostly American, which relocated for the purpose of producing goods at low cost with the intention of selling the goods back into the USA. American companies can't compete so they relocate too. Why do you think big business loved the uruguay round of gatt and NAFTA.
Nope, sorry, the only actual reason for outsourcing is labor regulation. It would obviously be much more profitable to manufacture these goods in America, accounting for higher wages. The problem is labor regulations. They're basically a tax a huge tax on labor, and they make many manufacturing jobs cost-prohibitive.
@twk373 The real unemployment in America must be 20 % counting unemployed, underemployed and long term unemployed. The public sector wages are to high because their out of line with the private sector. A lot of jobs in America are in the service sector on minimum wage. Real wages in America have declined since the Regan administration. These above minimum wage jobs in the private sector are the ones fleeing the country. People and government are in to much debt for Repeal the labor regulations.
Repealing labor regulations is the first step to solving the problem. Currently, it is illegal for workers to negotiate with their employers regarding many critical aspects of compensation, like health care, insurance, worker's comp, workplace amenities, and so on. All of this bullshit is mandated by labor regulations. Labor regulations serve no purpose except to keep people unemployed.
@twk373 America had a real economy until these policies were implemented. All economy's evolve, nothing stays static. Do you not even see the problem that would arise as a result of Repealing labor regulations ? I admit keeping things as they are isn't a solution either, I think it's game up soon. What going to happen next is a broken economy that can't be fixed.
@CoWalsh04 Yes, economies do not stay static. I haven't read his book on "How an economy grows and why it crashes" so I don't know if his assessment is valid, but even if it it was, it's just half of the story. To know how an economy grows and why it collapses, that doesn't ensure continued growth.
Perpetual growth only can happen if EVERY human being in that economy does the right thing..Can Schiff or any other human being on the earth "make" every other human do the right thing???
@twk373 Idiot--you don't recognize the human element. A market isn't an entity by itself--it's run by imperfect, self-serving, selfish human beings...
You are a moron. The market isn't "run" by anyone; human beings ARE the market. And the cool thing about human beings is that they behave in predictable ways, on the aggregate. For example, they tend to be self-interested and respond to incentives. That's why freedom is the only type of real economic system.
@twk373 Market isn't run by anybody? Tell that to the Chinese. Schiff thinks they Chinese economy is doing great and will overtake the US, and then in the next breath tells us that government meddling is bad for an economy.
If the market is "run" by people, it's not really a true market, is it? Anyway, what you don't understand is that the Chinese are vastly *underconsuming*. If the Chinese were consuming at the rate their manufacturing infrastructure suggests they ought to be, their economy would be much larger. Schiff is simply point out that the Chinese won't underconsume forever, not that communism doesn't create structural imbalances (which it has).
@twk373 The only moron, incapable of critical thinking, is you. If you want to know how a "free market" operates go to your local library and check out a video about the Ford company. Learn how abused, overworked and under payed the worker were. If left to their own devices, employers, if they can get away with it, will pay the least amount possible. If you believe otherwise you're a complete idiot.
Still I believe government intervention has and will continue making things worse
King of economics... 'nough said. Not going to lose time with this idiot.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
Peter Schiff on Fox about wages Let them eat cake: ." [The minimum wage] keeps people poor. [It] does is says that if a person that has very little skills, and generally they're young or they're poor, you can't hire them unless they can produce $7.25 worth of value, but it's not just that. It also has to compensate you for all the mandatory benefits and taxes ...And people that have no skills, it's not just worth it to hire them -- maybe $3 or $4 an hour, if that's what they're worth".
MrWarrenross 3 months ago
Put your faith in Christ not politicians.
mrchiefofsinners 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Find latest information on OUTSOURCING.
My Business Outsource . Com
Website: mybusinessoutsource . com
mybusinessoutsource 1 year ago
In fact, serious problems occur when the government tries to set prices. The minimum wage, for example, eliminated a slew of low-paying jobs (full service gas stations, dishwashers, shoe-shiners, etc.) and has made it harder for teenage minorities to find employment. Nixon's price controls created huge lines for gasoline in the 70's.
twk373 1 year ago
Which is more important, speculating on when the Titanic will sink, or getting off the ship? Highly recommend watching the YouTube video WHY WE ARE IN SO MUCH DEBT. It provides the simplest and clearest explanation yet of why our money is robbing us of prosperity.
SilentNoMorePubs 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
What a nut job Schiff is. You see his campaign commercials ?
A total off the wall nut.
He predicted the housing market would tank. BIG FUCKIN DEAL.
High school kids knew that was gonna happen.
tom6612 1 year ago
Comment removed
Margin0walker 1 year ago
I'm farting blood
Margin0walker 1 year ago
I also believe in a goverment controlled central bank, all countries use them, but the problem with the FED is that it's PRIVATE! Also, there is no public insight or control of how much money the FED is creating out of thin air.
InfomaniacJack 1 year ago
@InfomaniacJack
Central banking is a failed experiment. It causes the financial sector to slowly destroy itself, and it doesn't even keep it stable. It would be much better to have free banking. A little short term instability, is a small price to pay for an indefinitely sustainable banking system.
twk373 1 year ago
@twk373 Ideally yes. The only problem is that it puts more responsibility on the bank customer to evaluate the financial secuity of their bank. On failing to do so, this short term instability you're talking about may be devastating for the customer as all his/her money goes up in smoke with no safety from a central bank. I hear what you're saying, but can you really assume people are smart enough to spread their risks? A good central bank should not only guarantee safety but also put pressure.
InfomaniacJack 1 year ago
@InfomaniacJack
Consumers evaluate everything else they do/buy, and there's usually third party organizations that help them, like Consumer Reports. That's actually a good thing, not a problem, because they actually care about the safety of their money, so are more likely to make a good judgement. Whereas the politicians don't care. Also, the point is moot, as the central bankers have already failed miserably at evaluating financial security. Of course consumers would do it better.
twk373 1 year ago
@InfomaniacJack
Imagine we had free banking. The first thing I would do is buy insurance on my deposit. Problem solved. Now, I'm sure the insurance companies would be rating the banks too, and I would be able to lower my premiums by switching to a safer bank. Problem solved x2. And of course people are smart! Regular people make other kinds of investments all the time. Bank deposits are no different. Anyway, I think the "stupid people need government management" argument is specious.
twk373 1 year ago
All I know is that it has worked good here in Sweden.
InfomaniacJack 1 year ago
@InfomaniacJack
That's what they said in America just a few years ago. Look, I can guarantee that any system being centrally managed by politicians or bureaucrats is unsustainable. It's easy to show: eventually the managers will make a mistake, just like ordinary people make mistakes in the free market. It happens. The difference is that in the free market, mistakes lose people money, so they're incentivized to correct them.
twk373 1 year ago
@InfomaniacJack
Whereas in the government, there's no incentive, because there are no immediate consequences to the politicians for making a bad economic decision. In fact, the incentive is to ignore/cover up mistakes, because politicians who bring bad news tend to not get reelected. Thus, in centrally managed economies, structural errors pile up continually until the politicians can't hide them anymore, and there's a gigantic crash. In a free economy, errors do not pile up.
twk373 1 year ago
@twk373 Ok, I admit you have a very good point on "loan guarantees" or whatever it's called in english. I agree to some part of what your saying about incentives too, and that third party organisations can help the customer to make goo decisions and spreading their risks, but still I think the ability for a gouvernment to be able to set the interest rates is a good tool for evening out the fluctuations in the economoy. Making companies save more during good years and spend more during bad ones.
InfomaniacJack 1 year ago
@InfomaniacJack
But how does the government know what the interest rates should be? That's the trick. The rate of interest = price of money. In that sense it's no different from the price of a t-shirt or the price of a car or the price of a gallon of milk. The government can't know what the price for any of these things should be, because there is no "correct" price. The price is whatever buyers and sellers agree.
twk373 1 year ago
@InfomaniacJack
The same goes for controlling the price of money, except the problems are far more insidious. The main problem is that with fiat currency, you can't have a 'shortage' of money. So when the Fed sets interest rates too low (as it inevitably does), you don't run out of money to loan (like you would if the dollar was tied to gold). Instead, money is just magicked out of thin air. But this just debases its value while tricking people into thinking that the economy is prospering.
twk373 1 year ago
@InfomaniacJack
Just as the government can't know what the price of an iPhone should be, it can't know what the price of money should be. Politicians don't know how much money people should save, how much they should invest, and how much they should spend. Because there is no "should." The only "should" is that people should be free to make their own decisions.
twk373 1 year ago 5
@InfomaniacJack
As far as using currency manipulation to reduce economic fluctuation, it doesn't work. History proves this. We had recessions (then called depressions) before the Federal Reserve. The Fed immediately created the Great Depression by setting rates too low. And we've still had recessions ever since.
twk373 1 year ago
@twk373 The price of money can be set quite easily to have the desired effects on fluctuations. It has been exerimented with through several decades and works quite well in most countries. However I agree that you have a BIG problem in the US because of the FED which is private and works without public insight /transparancy. Also the US is a special case I admit because of the Petro-dollar recycling with the US dollar as main reserve currency.
InfomaniacJack 1 year ago
@InfomaniacJack
Fluctuations aren't bad, and just because an effect is desired doesn't mean it's right. Saying that it works well in other countries doesn't mean anything, because you're not accounting for the opportunity cost. A country with free banking would experience greater growth and prosperity than a country with central banking.
twk373 1 year ago
@twk373 A combination of these two facts, that is, a private central bank and the US dollar as reserve currency, has allowed the FED to irresponibly print enormous amounts of money creating the biggest bubble, if you will, of them all. It will break as soon as the rest of the world get's fed up feeding money into a system that devalues it. As soon as a new reserve currency has been found or oil stops selling in US dolalrs, the US economy will collapse.
InfomaniacJack 1 year ago
@InfomaniacJack The best thing to do right now for the US is increasing domestic production through stimulus not involving too much printing of money, but rather adjusting taxes in diffrent sectors. Increasing taxes in the financial sector and lowerin them for buisnesses that produce goods.
InfomaniacJack 1 year ago
@InfomaniacJack Also, the best way for china to "get out" of the dollar without loosing half of there money dooing so and setting their biggest tradepartner (the US) in a state of chaos, would be for china to start investing in US production companies while letting their currency rise in value. Eventually the chinese will have to start consuming imported products anyways.
InfomaniacJack 1 year ago
@InfomaniacJack
They key isn't lowering taxes (although that's necessary), the key is lowering government spending. But why not lower taxes for everyone?
twk373 1 year ago
@InfomaniacJack
Yes, you're right about the Fed and the reserve currency. America is on the verge of collapse now. The dollar is only the reserve currency because of inertia.
twk373 1 year ago
I think page826 is correct here. Peter Schiffs and Ron Paul say a lot of true things but you can't bring about their type of change too quickly, at least not against those who can't afford it. That would indeed create chaos. The banks are the ones who need to b held in a shorter leash.
InfomaniacJack 1 year ago
I think those service workers will spend a good portion of their paychecks on services too.
baigandine 1 year ago
@page826 Wow you use to sound smart now your sounding ignorant and arrogant. The soviet collapsed this way you know in afghanistan by printing money and with a huge goverment and lots of sevice workers no real standing army defeated them they collapsed under there own system. The US is socialist now if you havent noticed health care, real estate, education, and welfare systems not too mention huge millatart around the world.
jezza1789 1 year ago
@jezza1789 You never get my points right! Again I think we both agree the eventual outcome. The US is declining for sure. The bubble economy cannot go on forever. Every person on this planet will agree with that. I just suggest that the US dollar weakness and debt problem are not as serious as you think. There're still a lot of values in the US dollar. So I actually agreed with Krugman, it's okay to print money and create make-work gov. projects to keep people employed in the SHORT TERM.
page826 1 year ago
@jezza1789 but of course in the long run, once the US goes out of the emergency room, it will need to change its course and do things that Peter Schiff, marc faber, jim rogers, ron paul and the likes are advocating. Cut spending, saving, small government, manufacturing blah blah blah, we all know that. The problem is people like you keep blasting other opinions without even thinking for a second. I agree with the "REAL" solution but we just need the temporary fix as badly.
page826 1 year ago
mighty US, super millatary lol you mean the one losing in afghanistan with no end in sight lol yea dream on lates.
jezza1789 1 year ago
@jezza1789 Ok so do you think there is another army that can crush the US face to face? They lost because they are not fighting an actual war. They are trying to maintain control and occupation of a foreign country and that's why they can never retreat.
page826 1 year ago
@page826 A King can always consume and ask other people to produce for him, as long as no one challenge its position as a King, and no one has the power to overthrow him. The US is still the King as of today. It controls oil and the monetary system. In theory, the US does not need to produce.
page826 1 year ago
@jezza1789 they need to stay there because the US need to continue to control the natural resources there and protect the petro dollar. They are not really defeated physically.
page826 1 year ago
@page826 I understand what your saying the world is changing, Asia is the new power they have the money. What im trying to say is like the two before Stimulus DONT WORK in the end we will collapse harder with food shortages, no economy and a huge debt. If we collapse now we still have a chance btw China and Asia will be like the US and Europe.
jezza1789 1 year ago
@page826 It cant turn productive all of the sudden dont you get it we are bankrupt as a nation were living out off foreign money to buy foreign products stimulus saves banks we need a painful correction to correct the imbalances and become a production power. If it werent for Bush and Obama bailouts we wouldve been done with a brief recission.
jezza1789 1 year ago
@jezza1789 you said it "if it weren't for bush and obama... a brief recession", but that's exactly what I am trying to argue! YES, we did make the mistakes but they cannot be undone now. We need to respond according to the current situation. If it is in 2000 I will say let it collapses and allow the economy to recover by itself. But not after the ultimate housing bubble, the economy won't receover by itself.
page826 1 year ago
@jezza1789 What you don't understand is that Japan didn't have a world reserve currency. The US has a currency that is backed by oil and the strongest military power on earth (at least people think it is). The US dollar collapse is not as inminent as many of you suggested. The US debt is bad but not worse than the European debt level. We cannot have a proper debate until you have a real understanding of the CURRENT world political and financial structure.
page826 1 year ago
@page826 No other countries in the World can stimulate or consume its way out, but the mighty US does have a chance. It is still the KING in the world at this moment, because the US still in control of the oil and natural resources, they still have a super military power. Japan didn't have all these so they can only produce. Ok I am getting tired because you will never get it.
page826 1 year ago
@page826 Im sorry but in my opinion your idea sounds childish. The world has been thru many cycles and goverment intervention has made it worse. Japan did the same in the 90s the system collapsed anyway they stoped sooner than later though. You cant stimulate forever thinking youll get out of the problem if it werent for Chinas loans we wouldve collapsed since were so dependent on foreign products our money is just paper printing wont make us richer.
jezza1789 1 year ago
@page826 The only thing i recognize is that your solution isnt working the trade deficits are getting bigger, inflation is rising, and no production jobs (which made the US rich) are being created. How will we export things to the chinese to pay them back for all the money loaned with new goverment jobs come on think alittle.
jezza1789 1 year ago
@jezza1789 Ok. Imo, the US should keep the stimulus, unemployment, and gov. spending, invest in infrastructure (they already did), invest in alternative energy by providing a lot of gov. incentives for businesses (they already did), and let's hope it will grow into a real productive industry, AND THEN cut back gov. spending, repay the debt, reduce social benefits, and gradually transform from a service economy to a productive one.
page826 1 year ago
@jezza1789 According to Mr. Schiff, we should raise interest rate and cut unemployment benefits now. All of a sudden the system collapses and goes into a depression mode with depressed demand, expensive credits, businesses will be risk-adverse and reluctant to invest. Capitals will simply move to China and invest in their economy. How can the US turn into a productive economy all of a sudden? I just want to argue that temporary fixes are necessary.
page826 1 year ago
@Page826 Your right the US is in worse shape than the 20s and you know why because after the dot com bubble Bush passed a 400 billion stimulus which created the housing bubble imstead of a brief recession, the stimulus created the housing bubble americans taught they were in hollywood buying houses they couldnt afford. After the burst Obama didnt let the market balance itself out and passed a 700 billion which isnt working, whats next a trillion $ bailout
jezza1789 1 year ago
@Page826 Unemployement makes people lazy like a spoiled child. I know many people on it dont bother to look for work. You think all that cheap credit that evaporated and you think the economy or people shiuldnt suffer you oviously know nothing of economic cycles they been around since the bible days upswings and famin goverments cant stop or prevent them do your history, by the way the US has a 13 trillion debt.
jezza1789 1 year ago
I know you are for a total collapse of the system and to rebuild a new one. But who can be responsible for the risks of casuing a total chaos. For example, can you imagine that the chaos may get out of control and turn US into anarchy? Millions of people lost their jobs and home without government benefits will likely become gangsters and rioters. Can you stand in front of them and say "go find a job, save money and buy a new home"? Your ideas are morally right but just impossible.
page826 1 year ago
@page826 You know nothing about the economy or the history of it. Slamming on the breaks is the best thing to do goverments cant control the market supply and demand imbalances espeacially the US huge global economy look at history they tried before. The money needs to go to the depressed areas like demanded commodities not start bubbles like it did after the Bush bail outs how can you possible think itll work right after the first stimulus didnt.
jezza1789 1 year ago
@jezza1789 No, I think you underestimated the magnitude of the US's current problem. Even back in the 20s the US was still in a relatively good shape before going into the depression. At least the middle class didn't suffer from serious credit card debts.
page826 1 year ago
@jezza1789 Pls also read my comments carefully, I never say cheap credits will cure the problem. It will worsen the problem just like you claimed. HOWEVER, it is neccessary to keep bumping credits during the transitory period. The US NEEDS a new direction but not a sharp turn like you suggested because I am quite sure that it will cause a total chaos. It needs a steady hand to steer its way out, not like crazy driver.
page826 1 year ago
@jezza1789 If you did study history and world economy extensively, you should also recognize that the situations were not the same everytime. You need to understand the current conditions and apply solutions accordingly. Looking answers from textbooks are "bad for my nervous system".
page826 1 year ago
We all know that painkillers can never cure the problem and they are bad for health in general, but we still need to take them under emergent situation like this. Like George Soros put it, when you r driving on slow and your car skids, you can't make a sharp turn and hope that the car will go into the other direction right away. In reality, you need to allow the car to go further into the wrong direction, and slowly steer the wheel. Slaming the brake is the last thing u want to do.
page826 1 year ago
Dear Mr. Schiff, I've been following your economic advises and I found one major problem. Your advises are good for the US in the long run, but they are not very practical. It's like telling a near-death patient to get up, take a yoga class and eat healthy. They r good for ppl in normal health conditions, not for dying patients. For example if you cut unemployment benefits now, do you think these ppl can find jobs in the near future? If not, what will happen to all these unemployed ppl?
page826 1 year ago
I thought the post 9/11 GI Bill was already passed and in effect?
kevinusma 1 year ago
Schiff seems to be one of the few economists who "gets" it. It is time for our countries people to wake up and stop following what wall street and our government wants us to believe. Join the conversation and help spread the word at our website, we need the truth to be heard!
DollarHedgersDOTCOM 1 year ago
Is there any way we can send our views to Peter and get his comments on that ?? I'm sure does'nt have time ..still
aryanc77 1 year ago
speaking of "recessions" where'd your hair-line go???
crabtrap 1 year ago
Peter, you've always been bullish on gold. What do you think about silver, long term and short term? Given the high possibility of the double-dip and the fact that, unlike gold, silver has more industrial applications, do you expect a reversal of the current silver trend?
sergxm2 1 year ago
Do people still pay taxes in the US? If so why? You might as well give up paying taxes because it's totally pointless right now.
aaricus 1 year ago
Pete, buddy, your attack dog Michael Pento just tore Erin Burnett's ass off. Now don't get me wrong, I'd like to take a bite of that ass too......"Michael you are so rude!" LMAO
mcdonaldscalling21 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I so wish you were our president.
aquapurity 1 year ago
This country can only compete & produce goods if they are willing to work for less money for companies willing to employ american workers & those tax cuts or credits go to those companies that can do this here. All the large companies are all based here but they manufacture in countries with no regulation & low wage workers. We are the consumers of those very goods that our companies shipped offshore to make more for themselves & you bye it. Stop shopping for more stuff you don't need & save.
TheLivingDeadOne 1 year ago
@TheLivingDeadOne That is correct however there is an important thing to add. when you say that american workers have to accept lower wages you are right but really they have to accept less gov, in other words between income tax, ss,med, sales tax, state tax, and most of all the inflation tax, american workers are really only keeping 30% of their earnings, so if americans accept less gov that alone would cut wages by 60% or so without a real decrease, then any decrease above that is gravy
slickbtk 1 year ago
Hi Peter. I agree on most things you say and I can't understand why not more people saw this coming. BUT, and this is important, you need to recognize that a large part of this stimulus package is aimed at building infrastructure, which in turn will reduce your need of oil, ie goods, while at the same time catching up with other countries in terms of transport and energy production.
InfomaniacJack 1 year ago
To prove your case you should state how much US Debt is owed to the Chinese and how much is owed to large International Banks. Have a feeling that Banks bought a lot of debt at good rates in return for a zero-interest loan.
PostBush 1 year ago
the cost of real estate is crazy high in toronto, im hoping the price of owning a home goes down in canada is that ever gona happen??
teebrron 1 year ago
PLEASE do your next commentary in response to Krugman's new NYT op-ed on 9/5.
RmcAZ 1 year ago 6
Didn't we learn a lesson during the real estate crash? No.
dskillz1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=I9z7UL_AFlE
"Americans in Irak"
Explicit rape scene
sansez 1 year ago
I resubscribed now that this senate crap is gone.
geir44 1 year ago
Peter start talking killuminati
akprince213 1 year ago
Go Silver !
harrybath 1 year ago
GAME OVER PETER, GAME OVER...
dslcobra 1 year ago
I struggle with Peter's insistence that we need manufacturing jobs (@0:35). Neither he nor any other single person knows what the economy needs. The free market will decide. Maybe there is a future in services.
Peter says service jobs lead to a trade deficit, but I suspect the whole notion of a trade deficit is BS. Governments (i.e. nations) don't trade. People trade.
RangerKozak 1 year ago
@RangerKozak look at what PPP does in the country, people in the US are forced to buy and use imported goods from other countries b/c it costs more to produce or get the goods here. KVIs need to be adjusted in this country and service jobs have to be reduced in order for us to get the right PPP #'s. to strengthen the economy we need to balance service jobs and manufacturing jobs. too much of 1 thing is never good, it either creates unneeded dependency or lacks us mutually beneficial trades
LeeRyan2930 1 year ago
@RangerKozak
In order to conduct trade, you must make (i.e., manufacture) something that other people want. Currently, the US imports manufactured goods from the rest of the world, and exports worthless dollars. The entire idea is that someday, eventually, the world will be able to convert those dollars into US manufactured goods. Thus, the US needs more (far more) manufacturing jobs.
twk373 1 year ago
you just have to pick the right time to buy and sell $. think the opposite. most of the time when people start buying $ seeing that the economy is doing well it is actually the bad time to buy it. when stuff goes down that's when you want to put your money in $. take care of your portfolio smartly, diversify it. don't be greedy, be safe. unless you have extra bucks to gamble.
LeeRyan2930 1 year ago
I agree with everything you're saying Peter...but your case for keeping the tax cuts for the very rich doesn't make sense to me. They all ready have enough in savings. Who cares if they can save more? I'm afraid that I'm leaning towards a more progressive tax plan as long as the Gov. reduces debt instead of blowing it on free credit.
Ringding3 1 year ago
By tinkering with the price and supply of money, we're really tinkering with the price of everything in the economy. It's just a numbers game. There are actual physical resources that need to be re-allocated, but it will never happen if we just mess around with the numbers on a computer at the Fed
fiveminuteplan 1 year ago
lol "Bernie Madoff with a printing press"
Great comment there Peter.
PLooBzor 1 year ago
Peter makes it sound so simple: Rid deficits, free market, and enjoy real economic growth. Too bad we have so many idiots in the government.
DonPaulPro 1 year ago
the GI bill, really? wow. if troops see this, those kooky unemployed people are gonna seem like a mosquito bite. screw giving them a college education and get them into manufacturing jobs where we can keep have them for low paid drones? i hope you have bought enough gold and silver to hire a lot of security, cuz if this video makes the rounds at military bases....i feel for you. im a keynesian who just wildly disagrees, but pissing on the GI bill like that seems like a deathwish. wow pete!!
doubletapsNtwinkies 1 year ago
While I agree with you in general Peter, I think it's only fair to point out that 'Service' jobs is too broad of a definition. I have a problem with how you use it as something that's opposite of production jobs. Consider a typical IT startup that offers service. Technically it's production jobs but because their service could be a website or an appliance, it's most likely be counted towards Services. So I think it's fair to further break down the Services and then go from there.
omitsura 1 year ago
any idea what's the impact of returning troops when the unemployment rate is so high already ??
aryanc77 1 year ago
@aryanc77 screw the unemployment rate, do you wish to see them continuing on burning our money pointlessly on the wars? we will just need to focus on producing tangible stuff and reducing services to fix the unemployment problem. and people need to be forced to look for a job instead of waiting for free money from the gov't.
LeeRyan2930 1 year ago 2
@LeeRyan2930 good view , just wanted a lil feedback on the thought , and your already sounding like schiff ... , i'm just doing a study and going trough a beginner economic text book .... and put the question to fish around ..thanks for post
aryanc77 1 year ago
@aryanc77 we need to take care of the wars seriously, end them ASAP. it's no whatever issue that can be delayed. people don't tend to get this. it's huge $ we're dealing with here. if we pay attention to these non-sense wars and the expenses we cover yearly on the watchdog globally as we did for BP oil spill, we can stop the wars and prevent them from happening again in the future. people just need to realize how big of a deal the wars are costing and killing us. btw it cool. keep on learning.
LeeRyan2930 1 year ago
@LeeRyan2930 a question , what about subsidies that we give by robbing the poor to feed the rich , the Medicare system pays for the education of Medics , later these people are so affluent earning in excess of 300K and who are they milking it from the very same people that funded their education ? I know we have a progressive tax system , but its this same affluent section that invests in tax free avenues and the result is that to the tax man they are another lower middle class family ??
aryanc77 1 year ago
@aryanc77 we have a long way to go with Medicare. I'm not a fan of Obama but he's started a good thing with the health care. it's far from what people need but we're heading into the right direction. you don't think about money first when it comes to crucial change. what we need is a better quality and full coverage health care plan. on a bad note, all the taxes will cost us some money but what's worse is it will hurt the economy even more and the poor will suffer more. yes, tax should be less.
LeeRyan2930 1 year ago
Islamofascist OPEC knows they have America over a barrel if they decide to sell oil in competing currencies thus putting an end to Americas sweet deal of infinite money creation and diluting the domestic effects globaly by way of every countries need to purchase oil with US dollars.
No meaningful US movement on adopting planet friendly alternative energy as long as it threatens Americas lucrative money printing scheme.
Gaiaseyeforbeauty 1 year ago
Peter, if this NWO Senator bid doesn't pan out for you possibly
AIPAC/MOSSAD could contract your services for their chief free weapons lobyist in Washington so Israel could bomb Iran themselves.
Gaiaseyeforbeauty 1 year ago
They didn't end anything in Iraq. They just changed the name.
nicademus1974 1 year ago
@nicademus1974 RFLOL! Ain't that the truth!
serryjw 1 year ago
+1,000,000
numba1stunna4269 1 year ago
@2000drpain86
the solution is not to nationalise which would surely create a massive spending disaster. rather get rid of the AMA and other such organizations which are keeping a lid on supply of doctors like an oil cartel.
Ramp up the supply of doctors, nurses, surgeons and dentists and prices will fall to affordable levels.
orangedac 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good job Peter. Love your straight forward talk. Please keep it coming. Unfortunately you are outnumbered 1000 to 1 by left wing short term thinkers.
paulemeany 1 year ago
Good job Peter. Love your straight forward talk. Please keep it coming. Unfortunately you are outnumbered 1000 to 1 by left wing short term thinkers.
paulemeany 1 year ago
Good job Peter. Love your straight forward talk. Please keep it coming. It's never too late for common sense to prevail. Yeah yeah. I also love the "needs a compass" comment. haha. Terrific. Only comment I have is OF COURSE YOU ARE BANG ON CORRECT!!
paulemeany 1 year ago
Let's say the "decoupling" if I interpret it correctly you mean -- of no significance economically-- comes one hundred years from now. Are you still "right"?
germana00 1 year ago
Another vid of truth. thanks for posting.
lindabebe835 1 year ago
I am glad that when people say you are wrong you respond to them and defend your views. It really helps to solidify your points when you answer critics. It seems like sometimes your predictions are early so it may appear to some that you are wrong.
rphillips21 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
End the Fed
LibertyPoet
website
donatefreedom 1 year ago
I don`t see any signs of the hyper-inflation, dollar crash, lack of world lending to USA predicted at your March 2009 Austrian lecture.
Why is this?
Andy
andylowings 1 year ago
@andylowings you aren't seeing hyperinflation, not yet anyhow. The Chinese are still manipulating their currency, propping it up. However, in other net exporting countries we are seeing the dollar near 10 year lows, Chile for example. Also the spread on Gold and Silver vs. the dollar has never been this big.
6024691380 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow, is he really making the argument that he wasn't wrong, everyone else was, and that's why he was wrong?
Talk about full of yourself, Schiff.
And please look at the unemployment rates of people with college degrees versus people without. Giving vets the ability to get college degrees IS helping them get "real" jobs. What do you expect them to do?
Honest question, what do you consider a "real" job?
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall Yes, that is precisely my argument. All the people who thought the U.S. economy was in great shape just before it crashed (which was just about everyone) also made the mistake of buying the dollar after it did. Given where the dollar is today, verses gold or other currencies, it should already be obvious that buying the dollar in late 08, early 09 was a mistake. Soon it will be revealed to have been a fatal mistake.
SchiffReport 1 year ago 6
@SchiffReport But when do you see this happening? Are we talking before 2012 or 2020? There's a large void of time there?
mrdoonbeg 1 year ago
@SchiffReport
First, thanks for replying. I did not expect that.
Second, I simply disagree with you. We'll see who's right by 2012. I honestly believe that both gold and silver are currently experiencing speculative bubbles, partially due to statements like yours and with many European countries turning towards austerity, the U.S. greenback will continue to be bought.
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall Buying dollars in late 08 or early 09 was like buying condos in Miami in 2006 or Dot com stocks in 1999. People who bought dollars as a safe haven were wrong. My only mistake (if you can even call it a mistake) was not anticipating that so many others would get it so completely wrong. If you still have not figured that out you are in for a rude awakening.
SchiffReport 1 year ago 9
@SchiffReport No, you are wrong here. There is a perfectly rational explanation to it. It is called cross currency swaps, from the Fed to other central banks. The Fed was slow in extending them in 2008, which caused the rise of the USD, and quick in 2010, when the Greek crisis appeared. This is hardly something new. Jacques Rueff in the '60s wrote extensively about these swaps and how they worked in the '20s, to sustain the value of the pound sterling.
Ludwig99 1 year ago
@SchiffReport No, you are wrong here. There is a perfectly rational explanation to it. It is called cross currency swaps, from the Fed to other central banks. The Fed was slow in extending them in 2008, which caused the rise of the USD, and quick in 2010, when the Greek crisis appeared. This is hardly something new. Jacques Rueff in the '60s wrote extensively about these swaps and how they worked in the '20s, to sustain the value of the pound sterling.
Ludwig99 1 year ago
@shalcall A college degree is worthless in many fields now, and that won't change anytime soon. Production skills, mechanical skills, agricultural knowledge, many of these disciplines are way more growth friendly than liberal arts degrees. Actually, a lot of training the military provides now may better prepare vets for jobs than a college degree.
pretorious700 1 year ago
@pretorious700 in reality, a college degree is far from useless if you wish to be employed in this country. According to the BLS, last month unemployment among people with a BA or higher was 4.6%. Compare that with unemployment for people with an associates (8.7%), or just a High School diploma (10.3%).
College degrees are far from worthless, and any objective look at the job market for those with liberal arts degrees will show that.
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall He knows what he's doing! He knows whats really going on he has plenty of forecasters that work for him. Look at his video from "southland today'' in 2002. He explains himself how brokers on tv are touting buying stocks when the brokers themselves are actually trying to sell. His long term views are right but short term he knows its overdue for a correction.
nteowl2025 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shalcall He knows what he's doing! He knows whats really going on he has plenty of forecasters that work for him. Look at his video from "southland today'' in 2002. He explains himself how brokers on tv are touting buying stocks when the brokers themselves are actually trying to sell. His long term views are right but short term he knows its overdue for a correction.
nteowl2025 1 year ago
@shalcall - the guy is talking economics. We are going through an economic crisis. Liberal arts are great, and service sector jobs terrific, but this guy is pointing out ECONOMIC implications of these things being over represented and retarded by government intervention (happens to be WRONG DIRECTION when yer in the middle of economic crisis). Unfortunately part of problem is abundance of left wing or ignorant types supporting politicians who are are making problem worse.
paulemeany 1 year ago
@paulemeany I totally understand what he's talking about. I have a masters in economics. I just happen to disagree with him. To be fair, I happen to often disagree with those analysts that fall in line with the economists at George Mason University, and Austrian economics in general.
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall
And Krugman, Bernanke and Greenspan know what the f*ck they are doing. An economics degree is pretty much worthless, except how you can use it to make money for yourself. If it were really valuable, most economists would be gazillionaires playing the markets. Instead most of them pound sand at universities all day making chump change and waiting for tenure so don't have to do real work.
666sigma 1 year ago
@666sigma There are economists that deal with market forecasts, and economists that deal with the macro outlook. And economists that work at wall street firms do make boatloads of money. Krugman, Bernanke, and Greenspan are looking at the overall economy, not just the publicly traded private sector.
Also, Greenspan and Krugman are on the opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to economic theory. Bernanke was pretty much a neo-Keynesian while at Princeton. Not so much now.
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall
And there twenty times as many people doing the same job on wall street without the bogus economics degree. Greenspan, Bernanke and Krugman are all neo-Keynesians. You slap whatever label you want on them, but they all want to inflate the bubble.
Only a moron could not see that America has more than enough consumption. It lacks production. You can't borrow and spend or print and spend while continuing to outsource jobs. They are all idiots.
666sigma 1 year ago
@666sigma I agree that they are on the wrong track but why? Surely they have the ability to see Peter's logic but yet they still keep going the wrong way. Why?What's their motivation?
Ringding3 1 year ago
@Ringding3
The lack of a true private sector background. They are politicians or academics that can easily be misled by the sociopaths running this country.
666sigma 1 year ago
@666sigma Private sector backround??More like common sense or a real lack of concern.
Ringding3 1 year ago
@shalcall look he has this a lot more right on than ben bernanke the man driving the car into a wall....
kixdirtsevin 1 year ago
@shalcall Yeah look at that unemployment rate, people who are recently graduated are a target group for unemployment.
You need investments in capital not in the labor force. The US has one of the most educated work forces in the world, that's not the problem.
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen you need to see that the problem is not on the supply side of the equation.
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall What the fuck are you talking about. It seems like you're implying that supply side economics is a school of thought, or a line of reasoning. It's a political brand name for reforms proposed by the republicans during the 70s and 80s. That's a pretty darn narrow school of thought, and with no linear structure within it.
Anyway, the supply you can change, the demand in this case can change with lower wages. Do you want a lower wage? No, didn't think so.
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen I'm not talking about supply side or trickle down economics. I'm talking about supply vs. demand. You said that we need investments in capital and not our labor force. Capital and labor are both components of production. They are both critical to the supply side of the market.
I'm saying that our problem right now is not with the supply side. I'm saying our problem is a lack of demand. It's complex because everything in this economy is interconnected, so it's not black and white.
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall
The reason America was the biggest industrial power for most of the 20th century was our capital. Labor is easy and cheap. Anyone can work in manufacturing. Now, management is a different story, but fortunately you don't need as many managers, relatively.
Also, what does it mean to say that we have a "lack" of demand? Demand, generally speaking, is infinite. That's why free market economies tend to grow perpetually; there's always more demand to be filled.
twk373 1 year ago
@twk373 No, the reason America was the biggest industrial power for most of the 20th century was because the rest of the world's capital AND labor was devastated by WW2. In fact, before the 1970's many studies show that the U.S. economy was actually more labor intensive than most economists thought.
Also, in the real world, your demand is restricted by income. You can desire everything in the world, but you can only purchase so much. So I mean demand given a monetary constraint.
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall
Fair enough, but the point is that infinite demand causes supply to perpetually increase. So income grows for large t, because supply grows for large t. This is why Americans have a much higher standard of living than do Zimbabweans. It's an issue of what the economy is able to supply, not what people are able to demand. And supply is based on capital. (Labor, too, of course, but people are easy to make--capital isn't.)
twk373 1 year ago
@twk373 heh, people are easy to make? Tell that to the Western Europeans who seem to be having a difficult time making them.
While I think your view is understandably over simplified (due to the character limit) I agree that what the economy is able to supply is a huge factor in growth. However that's not the case when the economy is depressed. We are not producing what our economy has the potential to produce. The rules are different when we are not at full output.
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall
Europe has an easy solution for that: immigration.
Anyway, I'm not completely disagreeing with you. But I don't think it's meaningful to talk about things like the economy being "depressed" or what its "potential" or "full output" is. Depressions just mean there were a bunch of malinvestments that need to be worked out. And economic output is in constant flux.
twk373 1 year ago
@shalcall No, the problem is never a lack of demand, learn Say's law and Walras' law. They debunk Keynes underconsumptious theory.
Say's law was postulated like a hundred years before Keynes even came along. You're just rehashing old myths It makes as much sense as me standing here telling you the earth is flat.
The problem is that the structure of production is tilted and the pattern of allocation does not suit the actual demand. The problem is not a lack of aggregate demand.
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen
The great thing about economics is that, unlike any kind of serious technical subject, economics can be understood by anyone who is 1) human and 2) not any economist. Economics derives from market behavior, and market behavior derives from human behavior. Any human can tell you that demand is infinite. Any human can tell you that buyers want low prices and sellers want high prices. Any human can tell you that he is the best arbiter of his own self-interest. Etc.
twk373 1 year ago
@Visfen If Say's Law were true, we wouldn't be in this recession.
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall
We're in this recession because the federal reserve manipulates our currency, which influences everyone to do things they ought not do.
twk373 1 year ago
@shalcall Sure we could be! What a moronic statement. The law lays out the first important things to understand about a recession.
Yes, it looks like aggregate demand is going down, because the measurable effect of it is that. But the real reason is that we have too many products of some sorts and too few of others.
Today we have too little agriculture, industrial and resource production. While there is too many services, too much consumption, too many houses.
That's a recession.
Visfen 1 year ago
@shalcall Keynes is utter and complete nonsense. If you actually read economics, starting in the 19th century like a normal person would do with any other subject (like when you read phyics or math, you don't start with string theory or Gausian normal distribution).
Say got the "law" named after him from debating it so much, all the criticism Keynes raise was already debunked, in General theory of Employment and Interest he makes a strawman of the law.
And Walrus law debunks it completely.
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen scholars make advancements in subjects over time. Bohr's model of the atom is wrong, even though it's a great teaching tool. Homosexuality isn't a psychological disorder. The world isn't flat and Say and Walrus are 150 years behind in economic theory.
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall
Economics is one field in which the scholars regress over time.
twk373 1 year ago
@shalcall Yeah, they do, but newer is not always better. Nothing in Keynes criticism is new. Keynesianism is not new. It's rehashed underconsumptious, protectionists, statist myths.
If you don't believe science can be wrong if it is newer, then you don't believe in the scientific method.
Can you tell me why walrus law and say's law don't debunk Keynes theory? Can anyone? I've been asking this question for about 10 months now and I debate the subject all the time. I haven't gotten ANY ANSWERS.
Visfen 1 year ago
@shalcall About 60-70 years ago the economic school went on a wrong path. In the 70s and 80s it rebounded somewhat and we've seen concessions made.
The reason why this is the case is quite simple. The market for macro economics is the government, but it's also supposed to be the check and balance. So what these ideas do is provide cover for bailouts and handouts to voters, while in and of themselves they really hold no intellectual substance. That's why they survive.
Please study the subject.
Visfen 1 year ago
@Visfen You don't get any answers because you are set in your ways. You can look up peer reviewed articles in econlit or another scholarly journal through JSTOR to show you how real world observations do not fit predictions from Say or Walras but somehow I think you'll find some way to excuse those deviations.
As for your conspiratorial theory of government influencing macro economic theory, well, it's conspiratorial.
shalcall 1 year ago
@shalcall Set in my ways? 4 years ago I was just like you, a moronic liberal.
No it's not a conspiracy it's a fact. You don't think the Soviet Union had economists suggesting their economy was doing fine? Fuck there were Keynesians suggesting that in the US. People indistinguishable from Paul Krugman said that in 89.
What scientific articles are you referencing here? Show them to me and I can take a look at it. Making broad references is the same as making none.
Walras is still accepted...
Visfen 1 year ago
@shalcall well who u call "everyone else" are the mainstream Keynesian economists. Other Austrian/free market economists who are on the fringe agree with Peter Schiff's points and so just because Peter Schiff doesn't speak in line with the other wall street cheerleaders frequently invited on Fox Business or CNBC doesn't mean there's no truth in what he's saying nor is he alone.
blablasometin8 1 year ago
Peter i am hurt you didn't win the primary. America needs more politicians like you. I was scared that if you did become a politician you would act like a politician... I'm sure you wouldn't and you have great views, thanks for your vids
mattgarcia3g 1 year ago
Things could get so much worse like using overpriced colleges for firewood!
Rizky06 1 year ago
Some people genuinely think things can't get any worse, Oh how wrong they are!
aaricus 1 year ago
Part 2. You need barriers because corporation will keep relocating for cheap labor leaving behind people unemployed and up to their necks in debt and the cycle keeps going. Low wages = strikes = unions = corporate relocation = destruction of ones economy. You can have free trade, but not with cheap labor country's. It's even destroys country's like China because it uproots people from rural areas and put a strain on resources.
CoWalsh04 1 year ago
@CoWalsh04
Wrong again, companies actually avoid outsourcing whenever possible. Why? Because US workers have access to capital, education, infrastructure that cheap third-world labor doesn't. Outsourcing means building new capital, training new people, and then shipping stuff across the ocean! Outsourcing is, ironically, a direct consequence of foolish labor regulations that make hiring American workers prohibitively expensive. Repeal the labor regulations and the jobs will all come back.
twk373 1 year ago
@twk373 Wow you're so wrong because if you could only open your eyes you would see companies have actually relocated due to the reasons I mentioned. The manufacturing companies in China are mostly American, which relocated for the purpose of producing goods at low cost with the intention of selling the goods back into the USA. American companies can't compete so they relocate too. Why do you think big business loved the uruguay round of gatt and NAFTA.
CoWalsh04 1 year ago
@CoWalsh04
Nope, sorry, the only actual reason for outsourcing is labor regulation. It would obviously be much more profitable to manufacture these goods in America, accounting for higher wages. The problem is labor regulations. They're basically a tax a huge tax on labor, and they make many manufacturing jobs cost-prohibitive.
twk373 1 year ago
@twk373 The real unemployment in America must be 20 % counting unemployed, underemployed and long term unemployed. The public sector wages are to high because their out of line with the private sector. A lot of jobs in America are in the service sector on minimum wage. Real wages in America have declined since the Regan administration. These above minimum wage jobs in the private sector are the ones fleeing the country. People and government are in to much debt for Repeal the labor regulations.
CoWalsh04 1 year ago
@CoWalsh04
Repealing labor regulations is the first step to solving the problem. Currently, it is illegal for workers to negotiate with their employers regarding many critical aspects of compensation, like health care, insurance, worker's comp, workplace amenities, and so on. All of this bullshit is mandated by labor regulations. Labor regulations serve no purpose except to keep people unemployed.
twk373 1 year ago
@twk373 America had a real economy until these policies were implemented. All economy's evolve, nothing stays static. Do you not even see the problem that would arise as a result of Repealing labor regulations ? I admit keeping things as they are isn't a solution either, I think it's game up soon. What going to happen next is a broken economy that can't be fixed.
CoWalsh04 1 year ago
@CoWalsh04 Yes, economies do not stay static. I haven't read his book on "How an economy grows and why it crashes" so I don't know if his assessment is valid, but even if it it was, it's just half of the story. To know how an economy grows and why it collapses, that doesn't ensure continued growth.
Perpetual growth only can happen if EVERY human being in that economy does the right thing..Can Schiff or any other human being on the earth "make" every other human do the right thing???
germana00 1 year ago
@germana00
Pure nonsense. Growth happens naturally in a free market. If you want that growth to be perpetual, keep the market free.
twk373 1 year ago
@twk373 Idiot--you don't recognize the human element. A market isn't an entity by itself--it's run by imperfect, self-serving, selfish human beings...
germana00 1 year ago
@germana00 Very good, took the words right out of my mouth and saved me the time in replying to him.
CoWalsh04 1 year ago
@germana00
You are a moron. The market isn't "run" by anyone; human beings ARE the market. And the cool thing about human beings is that they behave in predictable ways, on the aggregate. For example, they tend to be self-interested and respond to incentives. That's why freedom is the only type of real economic system.
twk373 1 year ago 2
@twk373 Market isn't run by anybody? Tell that to the Chinese. Schiff thinks they Chinese economy is doing great and will overtake the US, and then in the next breath tells us that government meddling is bad for an economy.
codediporpal 1 year ago
@codediporpal
If the market is "run" by people, it's not really a true market, is it? Anyway, what you don't understand is that the Chinese are vastly *underconsuming*. If the Chinese were consuming at the rate their manufacturing infrastructure suggests they ought to be, their economy would be much larger. Schiff is simply point out that the Chinese won't underconsume forever, not that communism doesn't create structural imbalances (which it has).
twk373 1 year ago
@twk373 The only moron, incapable of critical thinking, is you. If you want to know how a "free market" operates go to your local library and check out a video about the Ford company. Learn how abused, overworked and under payed the worker were. If left to their own devices, employers, if they can get away with it, will pay the least amount possible. If you believe otherwise you're a complete idiot.
Still I believe government intervention has and will continue making things worse
germana00 1 year ago
@germana00
No space for i