Technical problem, lol. CNN has been on the wrong side of every story, bunch of puppets & talking heads at all the networks around the world. Love how Marc Faber laughed at an RT lady cuz she still doesn't own any gold even after years of interviewing him, but not as funny as Schiff calling CNBC economiss Steve (perfect last name) Liesman 'clueless'
He was SHUT DOWN ON PURPOSE by the idiots behind all this... This guy is simply trying to open our IGNORANT eyes, but the financial machine, the devil, has no interest on that. Todaay, in 2011, you Know know the result. What's incredible is that everything he said was RIGHT. If we, humans, were more intelligent, we would listen to him, and others like him, and PREVNT the worst that is STIKLL to come. He is BRIGHT. WE're not...
Funny, those interruptions. They are happening all too often to Peter Schiff. Why? Government does not like him telling the truth! Hahaha Obummer does not like his predictions of failure, haha Schiff is right though, the government should have let City bank die!
frankly i think he -was- going a bit too far here. Peter Schiff is somebody to really be supported for his thoughts. And during crazy times you need crazy measures.. but the way to communicate them... shouldnt scare off their viewing audience - should it.
If you really want to understand inflation and interest rates etc. (and you're like me, who didn't really understand), google "hmscoop.com". Real quick cut to the chase website about inflation and banking. Takes about 5 minutes to read through, but you'll understand it afterwards.
I dont like how he compared the "overpayed" workers at GM with the OVERPAYED executives at Goldman Sachs. The hard working american in detroit is more deserving of a pay raise than the fucking crooks who run and control the big banks and government
@Slugg329 Actually, the american in detriot is hardly working because of union protection. The detriot american at GM is the same as the fucking crook in GS. Different packaging, same crooks :P
@1XMarksSpot the "overpayed" GM worker is still barely making a living wage. Whether or not you agree that the cost of labor is too high, or that the labor itself inefficient, you can't compare that to men like Paulson who left GS with a half a billion dollars.
@Slugg329 Over $50 an hour, which includes health benefits. Barely making a living wage? No. The GM worker got too greedy for doing a job that they half-assed because they had union protection. Does the GM worker really expect the company to be survive when it can barely maintain profitability. No. The GM workers did it to themselves with their accommodating union.
@hpw59 Last I heard, it was over $50 an hour, which includes health benefits. If it's really closer to $70-75 an hour, GM needs to let those dead-beats go.
@1XMarksSpot i live in detroit and im fealing the crunch of thoes auto workers not working. just keep buying your jap cars selling green bull crap when you need to repair them at 10x the cost for parts. but rember when there is no money left in america it was because u sent it over sea's
@rduncan999 LOL The Japanese produced and still produce better cars than GM does in terms of such things like fuel usage and style. It's not my fault that GM couldn't compete with others in the industry. Why would I ever buy a product that is of inferior quality that costs the same, if not more, than its competitors who produce a high quality product that costs the same, if not by much more? Why would I buy a product from a company that couldn't even handle its financial affairs? Idiot.
@panzerschreck1942 She was running out of time and CNN does not want to lose control. The government is not willing to say that we've lost this battle. Big businesses have a dangerous amount of control over the people.
this was the problem that i saw when i was in america people are showing to much faith in the american goverment thinking it can solve all its problems as peter said it needs to colapse and then when profitering happens then push interest rates higher which intern will force companys to save instead of borrowing money which really is not there
@Daniel39363 lol its england ur talking about ... thats where the central banking system crap started, i believe, the bank of england does much more favors for "its main clients" :D than fed does in the usa
@brickmason26 I said to get out of AIG too nitwit. But unlike Peter (who got ALL OF THESE WRONG) I said the Chinese would run TO, not away from US Treasuries. Peter has been saying that the Chinese would run away from Treasuries for about 5 years now, and for 5 years ... he's been wrong). Peter also COMPLETELY MISSED deleveraging (which blows my mind), whereas I did not ... heck the videos are still up about my US Dollar long for MONTHS in 2008 to 2009. He also said to
everybody makes mistakes, as I'm sure we can find some of yours also,
Peter stood up to the crooks and government ponzis on national tv willing to put his company in jepordy, every one wants to be the first one to predict, and in your trade, people are cut throat business men.
You should help the situation by agreeing or dis agreeing, but caling him a fraud is a cheap attack.
@brickmason26 stay out of the market in March of 2009? DId you listen to that one too? Because these simply mistakes (that Peter made) you missed more money than you would have made by going long in Gold. Because simply by going long (as I did after the crash) Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson, Silver at $9.50 ... all of which I still have, and I'm still long (some of them hedged, so I'm up even more than the chart) ... then you would have made more than your Gold long.
@brickmason26 Next time nitwit, you might want to look into the track record of who you are speaking to before you open your mouth.
Because I was so public about how BADLY I was beating Peter Schiff's Europac performance, that the shiffty Pete took down the graph of his fund on his site.
@brickmason26 unlike Peter, I don't NEED to try to run a fund, hoodwink people with stupid books, get money by writing a second book.
My skills at LONG TERM investing the capital markets (as well as short term trades) mean that I don't need to pull the snake oil tricks that your God Peter Schiff does
@chone808 unlike Peter, I don't NEED to try to run a fund, hoodwink people with stupid books, and then try get money by writing a second book.
I called the Recession before hand, DIDNT call for hyperinflation (instead, hyperdeleveraging, which is exactly what we got), was short stocks in 2008 and long since 2009. All public.
My skills at LONG TERM investing the capital markets (as well as short term trades) mean that I don't need to pull the snake oil tricks that your God Peter Schiff does
@AirelonTrading sorry, i don't know who this Peter Schiff guy is, therefore, he hasn't tried to "sell anything" to me. besides, he makes a hell of a lot more sense than all the nay-sayers. and that's coming from somebody who fucking hates Economics lol
they dont cut peter off. they know what hes gonna say before he comes on. its not a surprise. if they didnt want to hear it they wouldn't have him on.
Not least by gaming you. Market fundamentalisms are useful insofar as they enable them to circumvent democracy. That's why they fund them, despite some ostensible anti-corporatism. They want the poor and gullible to believe, for example, there was a golden age of stable money until gov't regulated FRB into existence - when nearly the opposite is true. It's one step up from "keep gubmint outa medicare" : basically the TeaParty with a bit of economics jargon.
Max is my guru. I left my job and got into bullion due to him. Found a job working for a German bank as an agent. Its easy and I had no experience then, only knowledge.
look at my channel and find out how to sign up free as an agent. Make money now.
Schiff was actually talking shit. He keeps conflating irresponsible commercial bankers with central banks with labour unions. The banks were too big to fail and should never have been allowed to get that big. The high st banks shouldn't have been allowed to gamble like casino banks. But any move to regulate that, and Schiff would be screaming about gov't interference. He is, himself, an irresponsible speculator whose sole correct insight was recognition of credit/housing bubble. Well duh.
@Muwt You don't understand the fundamentals - the central bank influences interest rates and credit markets through open market operations. When the Fed lowers interest rates and/or lowers the reserve requirements of our fractional reserve banking system, they are effectively pushing newly created, debt-based money into the economy. This new money benefits the first receivers of the money the most (usually government and its corporate cronies) the size of commercial banks is irrelevant.
@Muwt Its a counter to two of your statements 1) That the banks "should never have been allowed to get that big" - size is irrelevant - the risk, leverage and irresponsibility of the system is a natural consequence of manipulating money and credit. 2) Ask yourself, "Why did so many people seek investments that were 'gambling like casinos'"? Could it be that the central bank pushed interest rates to record lows for years at a time, forcing investors to seek riskier venues for decent dividends?
@gergenheimer 1) Not if the irresponsible banks are allowed to fail - which they can't be if they get too big.
2) "So many people" sought homes, not risk. Individual bankers sought risk because deregulation allowed them to reward themselves regardless of outcome.
Peter Schitforbrains would get us more of the same and/or catastrophic bank runs.
@Muwt Question: If the Federal Reserve, as "lender of last resort" is there to bail out any banks that go to the wall, and if they all go at once the government will step in, given this implicit assumption in the system, what was there to cause bankers to exercise caution? It is a classic tale of Tails I win Heads you lose. The can make big ass profits on risky investments and then when it inevitably goes bad they get bailed out and are soon making big profits again. They should have gone bust.
@DukeofWellington91 EXCELLENT question! There is, of course, NOTHING to stop them. It became inevitable once they scrapped Glass Steagal and similar legislation designed specifically for that reason - which had worked for 40 years, since last time banks pulled shit like this.
And of course any attempts to re-enact are met with screams of "GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE !" by a crowd of market fundamentalists, with Schiff near the front making some of the loudest noise.
@Muwt How about just make it clear that they will go bust like any other business. I am not American so do not know the details of your legislation but businesses need to fail from time to time, its what keeps the system efficient. Maybe if fractional reserve banking was stopped as it is fraud and counterfeiting, and also causes banks to be almost constantly in a state which in any other business would be bankruptcy, and they could go bust, banks would take less risks and be less vulnerable.
@DukeofWellington91 See below. I'm afraid you have the relation between fractional reserve requirement and fraud potential backwards. Britain has had nil reserve requirement since Thatcher's 'free-market' reforms, and hence some of the most fraudulent and vulnerable banks.
Banks should be allowed to fail, but we have to guarantee deposits or the little guy loses. So we need a few sensible regulations so banks can't hold the rest us to ransome. Schiff et al are the problem, not the solution.
@Muwt Well don't think I support all of Thatchers policies, some, but far from all. As for peoples deposits, the simple fact of the matter is that you should realise if you are not a complete retard that when your money goes into a bank account it is at risk if the bank collapses. That is why you get paid interest, as compensation for the risky things the bank is doing with your money. If you wanted your money to be 100% safe, rent a vault.
@Muwt Not what I meant, I meant that it is currently legal, and given this, people depositing their money should be aware of the risk. I would see the practice stopped, but as things are it is legal and the risk and rate of interest associated should be considered by people wishing to protect their wealth. People depositing money in high interest Icelandic accounts should stop for a minute and think why they are getting such a good deal, government should not bail out their greed and stupidity.
@DukeofWellington91 How is that not what you meant ? It's what you said. How would you "see the practice stopped" except by more, rather than less, gov't intervention?
Peter Schitforbrains and his ilk woud allow for more - not less - of what you recognise to be fraud and counterfeiting.
@Muwt I was clarifying my position. I do not view governments stopping a fraudulent practice as intervention, it is protecting free markets, where a sound monetary system is a pre-requisite.
@Muwt "Too big to fail" is a political choice, not an economic reality. As for the housing bubble, huge numbers of people bought houses, not to live in, but as investments, partially because returns on traditional investment avenues were forced down, and partially because loose monetary policy and government social engineering programs created an asset bubble in real estate. The riskless reward scenario you named was only possible because of the moral hazard caused by government interference.
@gergenheimer Nah, pandemic bank runs would have been the direst economic reality in living memory. You couldn't be much wronger there.
Far more people couldn't guarantee repayment on modest HOMES because of labour market conditions of the kind Schitforbrains thinks you need more of. The banks could have ridden it out had it just been the more reckless speculators.
@Muwt Ask yourself, "what is a bank run?" Is it an example of free market chaos and greed run amok, or is it a consequence of the government-sanctioned fraudulent practice of fractional reserve banking? A bank run is simply a bunch of people trying to withdraw their rightful deposits at the same time and the bank admitting that it can't fulfill its obligations - this is fraud. The fact that govt. allows this fraud doesn't make it legitimate, and it certainly isn't a feature of the free market.
@gergenheimer Could be either, neither or both. Bank runs, panics & deflationary death spirals were far more common before central banks mediated money supply. Hence every successful economy adopted the policy. The fraud you correctly cite is INSUFFICIENT fractional reserve requirement, resulting from deregulation under Reagan and Thatcher. A larger or full reserve requirement would mean MORE - not less - gov't regulation.
@Muwt Not true - the economy and financial system are no more stable now than pre-Fed, even by the Fed's own criteria (watch this video: yLynuQebyUM). Who gets to decide what "sufficient" fractional reserves are? "Sufficient" is an ambiguous, unscientific term. Look, when I open a savings account at the bank, they tell me I can withdraw it any time I want - they tell every customer this - they can't actually deliver on this promise for everybody - this is obviously fraud.
@gergenheimer then YOU apparently get to say what "sufficient" reserve requirement is, as it's you saying anything less than 100% is fraud. I don't disagree, but what deregulation gets you - the Peter Schitforbrians solution - would be the opposite : nil requirement. .
@Muwt No, logic (not me) dictates what the correct (non-fraudulent) amount of reserves are - 100%. In any other contractual arrangement if I failed to supply the agreed-upon goods when they were agreed to be delivered, it would be fraud. There is no logical or ethical reason to exempt banking from this axiom. Lower reserves aren't a result of deregulation - government has bailed-out and propped up our system of continually declining reserves for 100 years. The market would demand better.
@gergenheimer But it didn't. Bank runs and bank failures were common before central banks. And it remains a fact that 100% reserve requirement would mean more - not less - government intervention. I don't entirely disagree with you but it's idiots like Schiff you need to tell.
@Muwt A central bank isn't inherently necessary to run a fractional reserve banking system, it just helps perpetuate the inherently unstable system and forces out competition. For example, in the pre-Fed era in the U.S., State chartered banks were encouraged by govt. to engage in fractional reserve banking (some of them started up and printed notes with nothing in their vaults.) When problems arise in FR banking govt. props things up with bank holidays, FDIC, suspension of payments,etc.
@gergenheimer That's right, banks have always lent out multiples of deposits. That makes my point, not yours. A gov't mandated reseve ratio DISCOURAGES - not encourages - that. The reserve requirement is a MINIMUM, not a maximum, and people are free to go to any bank. There's nothing to stop the market raising the ratio, it just doesn't happen. It never did, except via bank runs and deflationary death spirals.
@Muwt No. banks (who fear losing money like any business) only lend out increasingly higher and higher (riskier) multiples of their reserves when they believe that something will shield them from risk. You seem to think that reserves would be zero if not for govt., but there is no historical evidence to support this claim. In fact, reserve requirements have continually decreased under the auspices of government regulation. You need to research Gresham's Law and get back to me.
@Muwt No. banks (who fear losing money like any business) only lend out increasingly higher and higher (riskier) multiples of their reserves when they believe that something will shield them from risk. You seem to think that reserves would be zero if not for govt., but there is no historical evidence to support this claim. In fact, reserve requirements have continually decreased under the auspices of government regulation. You need to research Gresham's Law and get back to me.
@gergenheimer I said reserve *REQUIREMENT* would be zero sans gov't. It's a mandatory MINIMUM. If market mechanisms would drive ratios any higher, it would be through depositor choice - not banker risk aversion - and would have happened anyway. The DEcreases have been DEregulations. Other deregulation allowed bankERS - not banks - to reward themselves for risk regardless of outcome. Hence the return of bank runs/failures. Oh, and I don't need to research Gresham's Law.
@Muwt Gresham's Law teaches about incentives. In money, if the law forces people to accept an inferior money, superior money gets chased out of circulation. It applies in banking as well. When government legalizes fraud and promises to shield depositors AND banks from their losses, riskier behavior will drive out safer alternatives. Government regulations do not merely set a floor beneath banking practices, they provide the incentive structure for a race to the bottom.
@gergenheimer ..which is irrelevant as no one's forced to accept anything. The reserve requirement is a MINIMUM, not a maximum. Banks are free to reserve higher ratios and customers are free to demand them.
@Muwt Once again, people respond to incentives. When government policy distorts or destroys the connection between risk and reward, it is utterly predictable that people's behavior will change along with it. You seem to think that laws and regulations are inert, neutral structures into which human behavior is channeled - you refuse to recognize that laws often have unintended consequences that are worse than the problem they were intended to fix - this is naive.
@gergenheimer Oh no, we know what happened when deposits weren't guaranteed : panics, bank runs and failures. The dangers of guaranteeing deposits were pretty obvious too, and easily mitigated with a few ground rules which produced 40 years of stability. We now see the entirely predictable consequences of relaxing that oversight. The naive idea is that market mechanisms are perfect and there was once a golden age of laissez-faire monetary policy.
@Muwt Did you watch the video I suggested? It's a myth that our system has been more stable with the Fed, FDIC, SEC, etc. You're forgetting - deposits wouldn't "need" to be guaranteed if the fraud of fractional reserve banking wasn't sanctioned by government in the first place - mysteriously, intervention always seems to beget more intervention. I never said the market was perfect, but it's results are demonstrably better as well as morally superior to interventionist arrogance and coercion.
@gergenheimer I'm not forgetting that deposits wouldn't need to be guaranteed without a mandated fractional reserve, I'm denying it. And there's nothing in yer vid actually says otherwise - even allowing for all the misleading equivocation and plain untruth you'd expect from a rightwing thinktank.
@Muwt Substantiate your claims - First, show me a historical example of a bank run under non-fractional reserves (hint: you won't be able to find one) Second, if the Mises Institute is a "rightwing thinktank", which unflinchingly defends free markets - to the detriment of truth and economic stability and to the benefit of the rich and well-connected, why is it almost nobody in the halls of power promotes the Austrian viewpoint? (hint: political power and free markets are antithetical)
@gergenheimer Eh?! Go to Wiki >> Fractional-reserve_banking >> HISTORY. Commercial banking came into being with FR banking - a creation of the market. My claim was about deposit insurance (enacted US 1933). Any panic before that. Your question doesn't actually make sense.
Heritage, Mises.org, Cato etc are propaganda machines. I doubt their sponsors actually believe that stuff. Austrians and people like Schiff are just useful idiots to people like the Kochs.
@Muwt How about some credible history, not a Wiki page? Research the Bank of England, the Bank of France, the Bank of the U.S., The Second Bank of the U.S., and the state-chartered banks of the Pre-Fed era. ALL of these were creations of government, not the market, and all of them propped-up FR banking. Why shouldn't the Mises "propagandists" believe their own message when they correctly predicted the Great Depression, the dot-com bubble and the "Great Recession", to name only a few?
@Muwt I'm willing to bet you don't know a damn thing about the Mises Institute. Did you know they are one of the most consistent voices against America's imperialistic wars? (which makes them unpopular with the military industrial complex) Did you know they criticized Dubya for his ignorant economic policies just as much as they are criticizing Obama now? Do you know they oppose most regulations because they usually benefit big corporations at the expense of small biz and consumers?
@Muwt Like I said, if Mises Institute is just a mouthpiece for corporate cronyism, why do they oppose our military empire, why did they oppose the Wall Street bailouts, why do they oppose regulations like the health care bill that were written by big insurance and big pharma? Why do they oppose the Fed, a legalized counterfeiter, who loans our government money at interest? The Koch's of the world aren't practicing Austrian economics, they are gaming the corporatist system.
@gergenheimer And any social engineering via interest rates was Greenspan et al hiding the failure of rightwing policies through which ordinary folks could no longer afford the homes their parents afforded on a single income.
@Muwt The Fed's monetary policy provided the fuel, but it was government policy that largely determined which fires the gasoline got poured onto. Politicians of the left AND right called for an end to "old fashioned" lending standards and pressured banks to lend to ever riskier clients. Wall Street tried to package these mortgages in a way that was "safe" and palatable to investors, but it was doomed to fail. Note - all this leverage and risk originated from the Fed's credit expansion - get it?
I gave up in 92 when Perot tried to make us see the light when the debt was 3 trillion.
I don't know what the future holds exactly, but here we are, and STILL borrowing 3.5 billion a day to keep the ship afloat with no realistic spending cuts in sight. The Achilles heel of a representative republic seems to be that politicians have no interest in planning past the their next election. That would require true patriotism which is virtually extinct.
That didn't look like silencing to me, it looked like technical problems, and the woman is asking good questions, and Schiff is answering them all appropriately.
@niltomega when its not on purpose she whould try to say "did we lose him" or "lets try to revive a connection", but she quickly jump over to next subject. so i think it was a real deal shut off
Peter Schiff is wrong to say that we should let the economy collapse. He is in disagreement with everything. Any one sided view can become an extreme and wrong view.
Someone realized that he was telling the truth so of course they had so silence him. If the generel public knew how bad the economy is, the government and the fed would have a revolution at their hands. He is hitting the head on the nail here, how can the government justify giving multi-billion stimulus-packages to bankrupt companies who are giving their CEOs hundreds of millions in bonuses. This is slavery! The public is working hard to make money, that is GIVEN to these people.
joe, the panic started in September 2008, if left unchecked, would have set the Western World back by a century...banking in America and Europe was frozen, stock markets and money markets were in collaspe, manufacturing which needs short and long term loans to survive was insolvent within weeks ...if your house is on fire you don't decide the Fire Department will just make things worse..you get the Fire Department to put out the fire and try and limit the damage to rebuild ...
@bellcord Your fire department analogy doesnt work because the fire department didnt start the fire in the first place where as i dont think any reasonable person will deny that the government and big banks and all the free unbacked money pumped into the system were the reason for this situation in the first place... so more of what caused the problem is the solution? sounds like a wonderful idea to me
@misdirectedanger For Pete's Sake misdirected, this all happened just two years ago, we're not discussing the fall of the rupee in 1840 here....the Wall Street banks had a cash cow in selling securities based on home mortgages which worked great until the pool of qualified borrowers ran out... so Wall Street started encouraging loans to UNqualified borrowers to keep their money train rolling in 2006-7....since they'd sold this crap to investors all over the world the crisis went global in days..
This shitweasel Schiiff lives in a mansion in Conn., drives a 3 car fleet of LuxoBarges and has personal valet and then yammers on about American's living beyond their means...the investors at his Euro-Pacific Fund have lost 80% of their money in the last two years..
@bellcord Hypocrit because he supposedly doesnt subscribe to living within your means? last time i checked he could afford all that stuff and isnt putting it on a credit card at 29.99% interest
@misdirectedanger "Last you checked he could afford all that stuff ?...You have access to his Tax Returns ? ...You run his credit report ?...Then tell me why his office furniture is the cheapest rented crap you can get...Tell me how his investors lost 40-80% of their investment ....you got answers or are you just the questions guy ?..
@bellcord ... and what can you say about other investment firms? you cant have an economy solely based on debt, what hes saying is let the economy do what its supposed to and not prop it up with unsustainable artificial demand
@TheThejoseph Fine joe, and the next time you get a infected cut just let it do what it's supposed to which is fester and kill you...not prop up your health with artificial substances like antibiotics...
@bellcord oh im not saying we arent heading for hard times cuz we are either way and thats the point, the medicine they are giving us is worse than just letting the illness go and letting the body get over it by itself after a while. have you heard of the depression from 1920-192? prolly not because it was so short but percentage of gdp loss was comparable to that of the great depression. the reason it was so short was the gov lowered taxes, cut spending, and didnt get their hands in it.
It's false to assume that the government can do anything about that. I am convinced that everything the government is doing to fight this off is gonna make. . . . . . VYVX DK-ATLN
we nonde need to dirty our hands making things in the usa any more. we are so far above that now. we can barrow in to eterity becaus the usa is to big to fail. lol we will always have cheep laber to do our dirty work or we will creat a place to do it for us democritising them in to submition. economic slavery works, just go to walmarts buy your new plastick thing and forgetabout it.
Peter knows, we're headed for a bigger recession when China can't be repaid. We don't watch the news and politics but that might change if P.S.'s career continues. Peter Schiff for president 2012!!!!!!! This dude's a prophet to bring us out of the hole.
Peter S. is correct in what he stated. They can cut him off if they want, but the reality is the reality. And by the way, when the interviewer asked him, so you are going to let all those workers/companies fail? I would respond by saying, no I didn't let all of them fail, their executives and people in charge let them fail, by taking on risks which are too much and inappropriate to take on. (TOP GUN): "...son, your egos signing checks your body can't cash..."
Hahaaaa...I can just see the editor/president whatever the fuck sweating his ass off in the controlroom going...Ok...so far he's been talking too intelligently and using too much technical jargon for people to grasp what he's on about...phew...Oh fuck! here he goes: " Everything the government is doing to fight this off..." CUT HIM OFF!!! CUT!!! CUUUT!!! --------------------------------------
The reason why Peter did not win the senate election because Corporate America will not let it happened! Banks want the bail out! The crooks in Washington were all bribed by the Banks. America is doom!!!
nice..."these things happen" and "the invisible hand of the free market" She is a total socialist tool. Have fun in Britain, biggest nanny state in the world.
@fieldman07 absolutely feel what your saying. What's the point or making an error if you never learn from it? "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it". Refusing to correct it is were many people seem to not understand.
Americans need to make things!! We did that at one point. Our industrial revolution has been eclipsed by Asia helped by the investment of rich Americans. Do you think you belong to or can become that group we call the filthy rich? Keep dreaming. I can foresee about 5 million destitute American citizens marching on Washington DC and taking this nation back by brute force. And if you think you will be a bystander, think again. You will be neck deep in it. So you might as well get engaged now!!
@MishuTaste That was a satellite crash. Very obvious. You don't get that screen -- but solid BLACK if they cut him off in the studio. That show is done out of London -- he was in the U-S.
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Hisssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss! It's no wonder bullshit news networks like Communist News Network aka CNN are losing their ratings to smaller independent news sources!
Well that shut him up. He's the Miss Chleo of market speculation, should have enough money to not have to whore himself out as a belligerent pundit with magic future goggles.
@wolverinetwerp You need to take a history class moron. Everything he is saying is just history. Roman Empire ext. But you keep going to work everyday with your fingers crossed dumbass.
@theUSER101 I may very well be wrong. I've been led to believe the decline of the Roman Empire was a result of hundreds of different causes over the period of a century or two. Rome's monetary trouble was only a small factor in the decline. I would love to hear your thoughts on the relating to the decline of the Roman Empire to our economic crisis of today.
@gibblitvision
Intentionally? I doubt it. They wouldn't want to hyperinflate and destroy their own pensions
SomeUsefulIdiot 1 month ago
The Anchor is a robot, a CNN puppet.
Ctemple2012 2 months ago
Anchor women snort a lil too much coke?
mryellow123 2 months ago
Technical problem, lol. CNN has been on the wrong side of every story, bunch of puppets & talking heads at all the networks around the world. Love how Marc Faber laughed at an RT lady cuz she still doesn't own any gold even after years of interviewing him, but not as funny as Schiff calling CNBC economiss Steve (perfect last name) Liesman 'clueless'
BurnOutXL 3 months ago
lols cheap move by cnn
jeiison 3 months ago
those bankster presstitute pussies.
DipSchittReport 4 months ago
hahahahahaha
DipSchittReport 4 months ago
He was SHUT DOWN ON PURPOSE by the idiots behind all this... This guy is simply trying to open our IGNORANT eyes, but the financial machine, the devil, has no interest on that. Todaay, in 2011, you Know know the result. What's incredible is that everything he said was RIGHT. If we, humans, were more intelligent, we would listen to him, and others like him, and PREVNT the worst that is STIKLL to come. He is BRIGHT. WE're not...
LexVantor 4 months ago
Funny, those interruptions. They are happening all too often to Peter Schiff. Why? Government does not like him telling the truth! Hahaha Obummer does not like his predictions of failure, haha Schiff is right though, the government should have let City bank die!
swissmaid 4 months ago
fuck that bitch
thethesethe 4 months ago
Do you think that Witch got a raise for cutting him off?
MONOPOLY35 4 months ago
I hear you Peter S. I didn't the first time, but I do now. Loud and clear.
tayronachan 5 months ago 4
dont forget that peter was in his office. so it was satellite link communication. i dont think cnn cut him.
schassse 6 months ago
The 3 Musketeers of Economics:
1. Mind. The human brain needs time and energy to adapt. Plan.
2. Meat. Eat meat every second day instead of every day.
3. Your money is not safe in the bank. Put them somewhere safer, like in your pocket.
All for one - one for all!
bvssvni 6 months ago
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
SMWhit3out 6 months ago
muhahahahaha
nazirdjon 6 months ago
"Technical problems........" MY ASS, MORE LIKE CENSORSHIP, YES I'M SCREAMING.........CAN YOU HEAR ME!!!!!!
hpw59 6 months ago
@hpw59 this is satellite connection between his office and cnn. in the background you can see the europac background.
schassse 6 months ago
"Yes we can Peter!" x)
sartum1 6 months ago
i love peter schiff he tells it how it is
bobshenix 7 months ago 2
frankly i think he -was- going a bit too far here. Peter Schiff is somebody to really be supported for his thoughts. And during crazy times you need crazy measures.. but the way to communicate them... shouldnt scare off their viewing audience - should it.
gezor20 7 months ago
lol "Ambitious" stimulus plan..
101simar 8 months ago
If you really want to understand inflation and interest rates etc. (and you're like me, who didn't really understand), google "hmscoop.com". Real quick cut to the chase website about inflation and banking. Takes about 5 minutes to read through, but you'll understand it afterwards.
TomH364 8 months ago
oh my goodness, thats even worse then o'reilly yelling shutup to every one.
calebstandfill 8 months ago 2
what a beast.
michaelshore1992 8 months ago
I dont like how he compared the "overpayed" workers at GM with the OVERPAYED executives at Goldman Sachs. The hard working american in detroit is more deserving of a pay raise than the fucking crooks who run and control the big banks and government
Slugg329 9 months ago
@Slugg329 Actually, the american in detriot is hardly working because of union protection. The detriot american at GM is the same as the fucking crook in GS. Different packaging, same crooks :P
1XMarksSpot 8 months ago 19
@1XMarksSpot the "overpayed" GM worker is still barely making a living wage. Whether or not you agree that the cost of labor is too high, or that the labor itself inefficient, you can't compare that to men like Paulson who left GS with a half a billion dollars.
Slugg329 8 months ago
@Slugg329 Over $50 an hour, which includes health benefits. Barely making a living wage? No. The GM worker got too greedy for doing a job that they half-assed because they had union protection. Does the GM worker really expect the company to be survive when it can barely maintain profitability. No. The GM workers did it to themselves with their accommodating union.
1XMarksSpot 7 months ago
@1XMarksSpot I'm agreeing with what you are saying......but aren't their wages/benefits closer to 70-75 an hour?
hpw59 6 months ago
@hpw59 Last I heard, it was over $50 an hour, which includes health benefits. If it's really closer to $70-75 an hour, GM needs to let those dead-beats go.
1XMarksSpot 6 months ago
@1XMarksSpot i live in detroit and im fealing the crunch of thoes auto workers not working. just keep buying your jap cars selling green bull crap when you need to repair them at 10x the cost for parts. but rember when there is no money left in america it was because u sent it over sea's
rduncan999 7 months ago
@rduncan999 LOL The Japanese produced and still produce better cars than GM does in terms of such things like fuel usage and style. It's not my fault that GM couldn't compete with others in the industry. Why would I ever buy a product that is of inferior quality that costs the same, if not more, than its competitors who produce a high quality product that costs the same, if not by much more? Why would I buy a product from a company that couldn't even handle its financial affairs? Idiot.
1XMarksSpot 7 months ago
Check out my latest great interview of Peter Schiff. It's a 30 min interview from my 91.5fm show on my website (Covering Delta and Peter Schiff)
CoveringDelta 9 months ago
why did she do that?
panzerschreck1942 9 months ago
@panzerschreck1942 Liberals are bitches.
WhitetailWillie 9 months ago 2
@panzerschreck1942 She was running out of time and CNN does not want to lose control. The government is not willing to say that we've lost this battle. Big businesses have a dangerous amount of control over the people.
MONOPOLY35 8 months ago
this was the problem that i saw when i was in america people are showing to much faith in the american goverment thinking it can solve all its problems as peter said it needs to colapse and then when profitering happens then push interest rates higher which intern will force companys to save instead of borrowing money which really is not there
gocam19 9 months ago
Europeans are more liberal than Americans.... figures that they would censor a guy who is talking bad about obama's economic stimulus bullshit.
Daniel39363 9 months ago 18
@Daniel39363 lol its england ur talking about ... thats where the central banking system crap started, i believe, the bank of england does much more favors for "its main clients" :D than fed does in the usa
ovaxova 9 months ago
"these things happened right?" LOL!!
JoeDaPlumber 11 months ago
Wow.. she was obviously pissed off about this...this is .....
bootyraider 11 months ago
4:08 onwards is the best part.
Good for CNN
Guys a fraud. Finally, people are waking up to that ...
AirelonTrading 11 months ago
@AirelonTrading
Must be a fraud when he said in 06 to get out of aig and invest into gld, when it was 7 something an ounce.
lets spend some more money, what happens next?
Peter will tell you what to do dumb ass
brickmason26 10 months ago
@brickmason26 I said to get out of AIG too nitwit. But unlike Peter (who got ALL OF THESE WRONG) I said the Chinese would run TO, not away from US Treasuries. Peter has been saying that the Chinese would run away from Treasuries for about 5 years now, and for 5 years ... he's been wrong). Peter also COMPLETELY MISSED deleveraging (which blows my mind), whereas I did not ... heck the videos are still up about my US Dollar long for MONTHS in 2008 to 2009. He also said to
AirelonTrading 10 months ago
@AirelonTrading
everybody makes mistakes, as I'm sure we can find some of yours also,
Peter stood up to the crooks and government ponzis on national tv willing to put his company in jepordy, every one wants to be the first one to predict, and in your trade, people are cut throat business men.
You should help the situation by agreeing or dis agreeing, but caling him a fraud is a cheap attack.
brickmason26 10 months ago
@brickmason26 stay out of the market in March of 2009? DId you listen to that one too? Because these simply mistakes (that Peter made) you missed more money than you would have made by going long in Gold. Because simply by going long (as I did after the crash) Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson, Silver at $9.50 ... all of which I still have, and I'm still long (some of them hedged, so I'm up even more than the chart) ... then you would have made more than your Gold long.
AirelonTrading 10 months ago
@brickmason26 Next time nitwit, you might want to look into the track record of who you are speaking to before you open your mouth.
Because I was so public about how BADLY I was beating Peter Schiff's Europac performance, that the shiffty Pete took down the graph of his fund on his site.
AirelonTrading 10 months ago
@brickmason26 unlike Peter, I don't NEED to try to run a fund, hoodwink people with stupid books, get money by writing a second book.
My skills at LONG TERM investing the capital markets (as well as short term trades) mean that I don't need to pull the snake oil tricks that your God Peter Schiff does
AirelonTrading 10 months ago
@AirelonTrading
your an idiot.
brickmason26 10 months ago
@AirelonTrading is the recession we've been living for years a "fraud" as well?
chone808 10 months ago
@chone808 unlike Peter, I don't NEED to try to run a fund, hoodwink people with stupid books, and then try get money by writing a second book.
I called the Recession before hand, DIDNT call for hyperinflation (instead, hyperdeleveraging, which is exactly what we got), was short stocks in 2008 and long since 2009. All public.
My skills at LONG TERM investing the capital markets (as well as short term trades) mean that I don't need to pull the snake oil tricks that your God Peter Schiff does
AirelonTrading 10 months ago
@chone808 So next time? Next time stop your silly hero worship and listen to people who aren't trying to sell you something
AirelonTrading 10 months ago
@AirelonTrading sorry, i don't know who this Peter Schiff guy is, therefore, he hasn't tried to "sell anything" to me. besides, he makes a hell of a lot more sense than all the nay-sayers. and that's coming from somebody who fucking hates Economics lol
chone808 10 months ago
they dont cut peter off. they know what hes gonna say before he comes on. its not a surprise. if they didnt want to hear it they wouldn't have him on.
jsmith2142 11 months ago
sinister? or technical?
forget it, lay back, enjoy the orgy ;-)
Yogaboarder 11 months ago
hah, no one likes hearing the truth!
dobberdoss 11 months ago
"these things happen" she says.Use a BiaatcH!
Oen713 11 months ago
Not least by gaming you. Market fundamentalisms are useful insofar as they enable them to circumvent democracy. That's why they fund them, despite some ostensible anti-corporatism. They want the poor and gullible to believe, for example, there was a golden age of stable money until gov't regulated FRB into existence - when nearly the opposite is true. It's one step up from "keep gubmint outa medicare" : basically the TeaParty with a bit of economics jargon.
Muwt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Max is my guru. I left my job and got into bullion due to him. Found a job working for a German bank as an agent. Its easy and I had no experience then, only knowledge.
look at my channel and find out how to sign up free as an agent. Make money now.
Im so glad I did
Kev.
westmidsgold 1 year ago
America is that homeless dude that bums for cash all day then drives off in a Mercedes.
davidt3400 1 year ago
Schiff was actually talking shit. He keeps conflating irresponsible commercial bankers with central banks with labour unions. The banks were too big to fail and should never have been allowed to get that big. The high st banks shouldn't have been allowed to gamble like casino banks. But any move to regulate that, and Schiff would be screaming about gov't interference. He is, himself, an irresponsible speculator whose sole correct insight was recognition of credit/housing bubble. Well duh.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt You don't understand the fundamentals - the central bank influences interest rates and credit markets through open market operations. When the Fed lowers interest rates and/or lowers the reserve requirements of our fractional reserve banking system, they are effectively pushing newly created, debt-based money into the economy. This new money benefits the first receivers of the money the most (usually government and its corporate cronies) the size of commercial banks is irrelevant.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer well said
McDoulgham 1 year ago
@gergenheimer Not quite, but near enough. And to what do you imagine this is a counterargument ?
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt Its a counter to two of your statements 1) That the banks "should never have been allowed to get that big" - size is irrelevant - the risk, leverage and irresponsibility of the system is a natural consequence of manipulating money and credit. 2) Ask yourself, "Why did so many people seek investments that were 'gambling like casinos'"? Could it be that the central bank pushed interest rates to record lows for years at a time, forcing investors to seek riskier venues for decent dividends?
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer 1) Not if the irresponsible banks are allowed to fail - which they can't be if they get too big.
2) "So many people" sought homes, not risk. Individual bankers sought risk because deregulation allowed them to reward themselves regardless of outcome.
Peter Schitforbrains would get us more of the same and/or catastrophic bank runs.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt Question: If the Federal Reserve, as "lender of last resort" is there to bail out any banks that go to the wall, and if they all go at once the government will step in, given this implicit assumption in the system, what was there to cause bankers to exercise caution? It is a classic tale of Tails I win Heads you lose. The can make big ass profits on risky investments and then when it inevitably goes bad they get bailed out and are soon making big profits again. They should have gone bust.
DukeofWellington91 1 year ago
@DukeofWellington91 EXCELLENT question! There is, of course, NOTHING to stop them. It became inevitable once they scrapped Glass Steagal and similar legislation designed specifically for that reason - which had worked for 40 years, since last time banks pulled shit like this.
And of course any attempts to re-enact are met with screams of "GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE !" by a crowd of market fundamentalists, with Schiff near the front making some of the loudest noise.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt How about just make it clear that they will go bust like any other business. I am not American so do not know the details of your legislation but businesses need to fail from time to time, its what keeps the system efficient. Maybe if fractional reserve banking was stopped as it is fraud and counterfeiting, and also causes banks to be almost constantly in a state which in any other business would be bankruptcy, and they could go bust, banks would take less risks and be less vulnerable.
DukeofWellington91 1 year ago
@DukeofWellington91 See below. I'm afraid you have the relation between fractional reserve requirement and fraud potential backwards. Britain has had nil reserve requirement since Thatcher's 'free-market' reforms, and hence some of the most fraudulent and vulnerable banks.
Banks should be allowed to fail, but we have to guarantee deposits or the little guy loses. So we need a few sensible regulations so banks can't hold the rest us to ransome. Schiff et al are the problem, not the solution.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt Well don't think I support all of Thatchers policies, some, but far from all. As for peoples deposits, the simple fact of the matter is that you should realise if you are not a complete retard that when your money goes into a bank account it is at risk if the bank collapses. That is why you get paid interest, as compensation for the risky things the bank is doing with your money. If you wanted your money to be 100% safe, rent a vault.
DukeofWellington91 1 year ago
@DukeofWellington91 Aah, so FRB is fraud and counterfeiting, which you think banks should be free to perpetrate. Ohhhh kay.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt Not what I meant, I meant that it is currently legal, and given this, people depositing their money should be aware of the risk. I would see the practice stopped, but as things are it is legal and the risk and rate of interest associated should be considered by people wishing to protect their wealth. People depositing money in high interest Icelandic accounts should stop for a minute and think why they are getting such a good deal, government should not bail out their greed and stupidity.
DukeofWellington91 1 year ago
@DukeofWellington91 How is that not what you meant ? It's what you said. How would you "see the practice stopped" except by more, rather than less, gov't intervention?
Peter Schitforbrains and his ilk woud allow for more - not less - of what you recognise to be fraud and counterfeiting.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt I was clarifying my position. I do not view governments stopping a fraudulent practice as intervention, it is protecting free markets, where a sound monetary system is a pre-requisite.
DukeofWellington91 1 year ago
@Muwt "Too big to fail" is a political choice, not an economic reality. As for the housing bubble, huge numbers of people bought houses, not to live in, but as investments, partially because returns on traditional investment avenues were forced down, and partially because loose monetary policy and government social engineering programs created an asset bubble in real estate. The riskless reward scenario you named was only possible because of the moral hazard caused by government interference.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer Nah, pandemic bank runs would have been the direst economic reality in living memory. You couldn't be much wronger there.
Far more people couldn't guarantee repayment on modest HOMES because of labour market conditions of the kind Schitforbrains thinks you need more of. The banks could have ridden it out had it just been the more reckless speculators.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt Ask yourself, "what is a bank run?" Is it an example of free market chaos and greed run amok, or is it a consequence of the government-sanctioned fraudulent practice of fractional reserve banking? A bank run is simply a bunch of people trying to withdraw their rightful deposits at the same time and the bank admitting that it can't fulfill its obligations - this is fraud. The fact that govt. allows this fraud doesn't make it legitimate, and it certainly isn't a feature of the free market.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer Could be either, neither or both. Bank runs, panics & deflationary death spirals were far more common before central banks mediated money supply. Hence every successful economy adopted the policy. The fraud you correctly cite is INSUFFICIENT fractional reserve requirement, resulting from deregulation under Reagan and Thatcher. A larger or full reserve requirement would mean MORE - not less - gov't regulation.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt Not true - the economy and financial system are no more stable now than pre-Fed, even by the Fed's own criteria (watch this video: yLynuQebyUM). Who gets to decide what "sufficient" fractional reserves are? "Sufficient" is an ambiguous, unscientific term. Look, when I open a savings account at the bank, they tell me I can withdraw it any time I want - they tell every customer this - they can't actually deliver on this promise for everybody - this is obviously fraud.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer then YOU apparently get to say what "sufficient" reserve requirement is, as it's you saying anything less than 100% is fraud. I don't disagree, but what deregulation gets you - the Peter Schitforbrians solution - would be the opposite : nil requirement. .
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt No, logic (not me) dictates what the correct (non-fraudulent) amount of reserves are - 100%. In any other contractual arrangement if I failed to supply the agreed-upon goods when they were agreed to be delivered, it would be fraud. There is no logical or ethical reason to exempt banking from this axiom. Lower reserves aren't a result of deregulation - government has bailed-out and propped up our system of continually declining reserves for 100 years. The market would demand better.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer But it didn't. Bank runs and bank failures were common before central banks. And it remains a fact that 100% reserve requirement would mean more - not less - government intervention. I don't entirely disagree with you but it's idiots like Schiff you need to tell.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt A central bank isn't inherently necessary to run a fractional reserve banking system, it just helps perpetuate the inherently unstable system and forces out competition. For example, in the pre-Fed era in the U.S., State chartered banks were encouraged by govt. to engage in fractional reserve banking (some of them started up and printed notes with nothing in their vaults.) When problems arise in FR banking govt. props things up with bank holidays, FDIC, suspension of payments,etc.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer That's right, banks have always lent out multiples of deposits. That makes my point, not yours. A gov't mandated reseve ratio DISCOURAGES - not encourages - that. The reserve requirement is a MINIMUM, not a maximum, and people are free to go to any bank. There's nothing to stop the market raising the ratio, it just doesn't happen. It never did, except via bank runs and deflationary death spirals.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt No. banks (who fear losing money like any business) only lend out increasingly higher and higher (riskier) multiples of their reserves when they believe that something will shield them from risk. You seem to think that reserves would be zero if not for govt., but there is no historical evidence to support this claim. In fact, reserve requirements have continually decreased under the auspices of government regulation. You need to research Gresham's Law and get back to me.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@Muwt No. banks (who fear losing money like any business) only lend out increasingly higher and higher (riskier) multiples of their reserves when they believe that something will shield them from risk. You seem to think that reserves would be zero if not for govt., but there is no historical evidence to support this claim. In fact, reserve requirements have continually decreased under the auspices of government regulation. You need to research Gresham's Law and get back to me.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer I said reserve *REQUIREMENT* would be zero sans gov't. It's a mandatory MINIMUM. If market mechanisms would drive ratios any higher, it would be through depositor choice - not banker risk aversion - and would have happened anyway. The DEcreases have been DEregulations. Other deregulation allowed bankERS - not banks - to reward themselves for risk regardless of outcome. Hence the return of bank runs/failures. Oh, and I don't need to research Gresham's Law.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt Gresham's Law teaches about incentives. In money, if the law forces people to accept an inferior money, superior money gets chased out of circulation. It applies in banking as well. When government legalizes fraud and promises to shield depositors AND banks from their losses, riskier behavior will drive out safer alternatives. Government regulations do not merely set a floor beneath banking practices, they provide the incentive structure for a race to the bottom.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer ..which is irrelevant as no one's forced to accept anything. The reserve requirement is a MINIMUM, not a maximum. Banks are free to reserve higher ratios and customers are free to demand them.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt Once again, people respond to incentives. When government policy distorts or destroys the connection between risk and reward, it is utterly predictable that people's behavior will change along with it. You seem to think that laws and regulations are inert, neutral structures into which human behavior is channeled - you refuse to recognize that laws often have unintended consequences that are worse than the problem they were intended to fix - this is naive.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer Oh no, we know what happened when deposits weren't guaranteed : panics, bank runs and failures. The dangers of guaranteeing deposits were pretty obvious too, and easily mitigated with a few ground rules which produced 40 years of stability. We now see the entirely predictable consequences of relaxing that oversight. The naive idea is that market mechanisms are perfect and there was once a golden age of laissez-faire monetary policy.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt Did you watch the video I suggested? It's a myth that our system has been more stable with the Fed, FDIC, SEC, etc. You're forgetting - deposits wouldn't "need" to be guaranteed if the fraud of fractional reserve banking wasn't sanctioned by government in the first place - mysteriously, intervention always seems to beget more intervention. I never said the market was perfect, but it's results are demonstrably better as well as morally superior to interventionist arrogance and coercion.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer I'm not forgetting that deposits wouldn't need to be guaranteed without a mandated fractional reserve, I'm denying it. And there's nothing in yer vid actually says otherwise - even allowing for all the misleading equivocation and plain untruth you'd expect from a rightwing thinktank.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt Substantiate your claims - First, show me a historical example of a bank run under non-fractional reserves (hint: you won't be able to find one) Second, if the Mises Institute is a "rightwing thinktank", which unflinchingly defends free markets - to the detriment of truth and economic stability and to the benefit of the rich and well-connected, why is it almost nobody in the halls of power promotes the Austrian viewpoint? (hint: political power and free markets are antithetical)
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer Eh?! Go to Wiki >> Fractional-reserve_banking >> HISTORY. Commercial banking came into being with FR banking - a creation of the market. My claim was about deposit insurance (enacted US 1933). Any panic before that. Your question doesn't actually make sense.
Heritage, Mises.org, Cato etc are propaganda machines. I doubt their sponsors actually believe that stuff. Austrians and people like Schiff are just useful idiots to people like the Kochs.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt How about some credible history, not a Wiki page? Research the Bank of England, the Bank of France, the Bank of the U.S., The Second Bank of the U.S., and the state-chartered banks of the Pre-Fed era. ALL of these were creations of government, not the market, and all of them propped-up FR banking. Why shouldn't the Mises "propagandists" believe their own message when they correctly predicted the Great Depression, the dot-com bubble and the "Great Recession", to name only a few?
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@Muwt I'm willing to bet you don't know a damn thing about the Mises Institute. Did you know they are one of the most consistent voices against America's imperialistic wars? (which makes them unpopular with the military industrial complex) Did you know they criticized Dubya for his ignorant economic policies just as much as they are criticizing Obama now? Do you know they oppose most regulations because they usually benefit big corporations at the expense of small biz and consumers?
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@Muwt Like I said, if Mises Institute is just a mouthpiece for corporate cronyism, why do they oppose our military empire, why did they oppose the Wall Street bailouts, why do they oppose regulations like the health care bill that were written by big insurance and big pharma? Why do they oppose the Fed, a legalized counterfeiter, who loans our government money at interest? The Koch's of the world aren't practicing Austrian economics, they are gaming the corporatist system.
gergenheimer 1 year ago
@gergenheimer And any social engineering via interest rates was Greenspan et al hiding the failure of rightwing policies through which ordinary folks could no longer afford the homes their parents afforded on a single income.
Muwt 1 year ago
@Muwt The Fed's monetary policy provided the fuel, but it was government policy that largely determined which fires the gasoline got poured onto. Politicians of the left AND right called for an end to "old fashioned" lending standards and pressured banks to lend to ever riskier clients. Wall Street tried to package these mortgages in a way that was "safe" and palatable to investors, but it was doomed to fail. Note - all this leverage and risk originated from the Fed's credit expansion - get it?
gergenheimer 1 year ago
I gave up in 92 when Perot tried to make us see the light when the debt was 3 trillion.
I don't know what the future holds exactly, but here we are, and STILL borrowing 3.5 billion a day to keep the ship afloat with no realistic spending cuts in sight. The Achilles heel of a representative republic seems to be that politicians have no interest in planning past the their next election. That would require true patriotism which is virtually extinct.
niltomega 1 year ago
That didn't look like silencing to me, it looked like technical problems, and the woman is asking good questions, and Schiff is answering them all appropriately.
Zimx02 1 year ago
@Zimx02 I thought the same thing but at 4:10 the video suddenly cuts off. Apparently this is the "silencing" they talk about. Maybe, maybe not.
niltomega 1 year ago
@niltomega when its not on purpose she whould try to say "did we lose him" or "lets try to revive a connection", but she quickly jump over to next subject. so i think it was a real deal shut off
bykashka75 1 year ago
peter schiff UNDERSTAND ECONOMIC WAYYYY BETER than MOST of those peoples on CNBC-BLOOMBERG-FOXBUSINESS- CNN and others. he is a GENIUS
tk291100 1 year ago
Peter Schiff is wrong to say that we should let the economy collapse. He is in disagreement with everything. Any one sided view can become an extreme and wrong view.
Ftfmglen 1 year ago
@Ftfmglen as you can see the economy is collapsing anyway. the quicker it goes the less painful and harmful(!)
it'll be. and, it will open up new ways to start up a hopefully better system.
McDoulgham 1 year ago
Someone realized that he was telling the truth so of course they had so silence him. If the generel public knew how bad the economy is, the government and the fed would have a revolution at their hands. He is hitting the head on the nail here, how can the government justify giving multi-billion stimulus-packages to bankrupt companies who are giving their CEOs hundreds of millions in bonuses. This is slavery! The public is working hard to make money, that is GIVEN to these people.
doncolle 1 year ago
Deregulation is a large part of the answer...
AnAmericanSon 1 year ago
joe, the panic started in September 2008, if left unchecked, would have set the Western World back by a century...banking in America and Europe was frozen, stock markets and money markets were in collaspe, manufacturing which needs short and long term loans to survive was insolvent within weeks ...if your house is on fire you don't decide the Fire Department will just make things worse..you get the Fire Department to put out the fire and try and limit the damage to rebuild ...
bellcord 1 year ago
@bellcord Your fire department analogy doesnt work because the fire department didnt start the fire in the first place where as i dont think any reasonable person will deny that the government and big banks and all the free unbacked money pumped into the system were the reason for this situation in the first place... so more of what caused the problem is the solution? sounds like a wonderful idea to me
misdirectedanger 1 year ago
@misdirectedanger For Pete's Sake misdirected, this all happened just two years ago, we're not discussing the fall of the rupee in 1840 here....the Wall Street banks had a cash cow in selling securities based on home mortgages which worked great until the pool of qualified borrowers ran out... so Wall Street started encouraging loans to UNqualified borrowers to keep their money train rolling in 2006-7....since they'd sold this crap to investors all over the world the crisis went global in days..
bellcord 1 year ago
... she smiled "these things happen right"
TheThejoseph 1 year ago
America... the country where the rich are free to steal what they want. It couldnt go on forever.
Janusha 1 year ago
This shitweasel Schiiff lives in a mansion in Conn., drives a 3 car fleet of LuxoBarges and has personal valet and then yammers on about American's living beyond their means...the investors at his Euro-Pacific Fund have lost 80% of their money in the last two years..
bellcord 1 year ago
@bellcord Are you seriously trying to blame peter schiff for the failures of the market? where have you been? pull your head out of your ass
misdirectedanger 1 year ago
@misdirectedanger Nope, I'm blaming Shiff for being a hypocritical false prophet...and please pull your head out of Peter Schiff's ass..
bellcord 1 year ago
@bellcord Hypocrit because he supposedly doesnt subscribe to living within your means? last time i checked he could afford all that stuff and isnt putting it on a credit card at 29.99% interest
misdirectedanger 1 year ago
@misdirectedanger "Last you checked he could afford all that stuff ?...You have access to his Tax Returns ? ...You run his credit report ?...Then tell me why his office furniture is the cheapest rented crap you can get...Tell me how his investors lost 40-80% of their investment ....you got answers or are you just the questions guy ?..
bellcord 1 year ago
@bellcord Lol you mad bro? You didnt lose all your money in the stock market did you? oh my go cry to someone who cares and how bout those questions
misdirectedanger 1 year ago
@misdirectedanger ...and a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you as well..
bellcord 1 year ago
@bellcord ... and what can you say about other investment firms? you cant have an economy solely based on debt, what hes saying is let the economy do what its supposed to and not prop it up with unsustainable artificial demand
TheThejoseph 1 year ago
@TheThejoseph Fine joe, and the next time you get a infected cut just let it do what it's supposed to which is fester and kill you...not prop up your health with artificial substances like antibiotics...
bellcord 1 year ago
@bellcord oh im not saying we arent heading for hard times cuz we are either way and thats the point, the medicine they are giving us is worse than just letting the illness go and letting the body get over it by itself after a while. have you heard of the depression from 1920-192? prolly not because it was so short but percentage of gdp loss was comparable to that of the great depression. the reason it was so short was the gov lowered taxes, cut spending, and didnt get their hands in it.
TheThejoseph 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
w w w economicassassin dot blogspot dot com
Check it out for a look into real economics just like Peter Schiff
8sharkey8 1 year ago
It's false to assume that the government can do anything about that. I am convinced that everything the government is doing to fight this off is gonna make. . . . . . VYVX DK-ATLN
you5711 1 year ago
tech problems my toosh
he was cut off, too much good info!
graasroots 1 year ago 6
we nonde need to dirty our hands making things in the usa any more. we are so far above that now. we can barrow in to eterity becaus the usa is to big to fail. lol we will always have cheep laber to do our dirty work or we will creat a place to do it for us democritising them in to submition. economic slavery works, just go to walmarts buy your new plastick thing and forgetabout it.
DANTHETUBEMAN 1 year ago
CNN Stinks... look at that! This woman is totally full of the stupid idea of government saving the economy... poor woman...
warning2006 1 year ago
Peter knows, we're headed for a bigger recession when China can't be repaid. We don't watch the news and politics but that might change if P.S.'s career continues. Peter Schiff for president 2012!!!!!!! This dude's a prophet to bring us out of the hole.
soulsingingduo 1 year ago 11
Technical faults my ass!! Peter Schiff makes too much sense for the masses of sheeple to be listening to... cut cut!!
antoconno 1 year ago 13
Peter S. is correct in what he stated. They can cut him off if they want, but the reality is the reality. And by the way, when the interviewer asked him, so you are going to let all those workers/companies fail? I would respond by saying, no I didn't let all of them fail, their executives and people in charge let them fail, by taking on risks which are too much and inappropriate to take on. (TOP GUN): "...son, your egos signing checks your body can't cash..."
bigdogITbiker 1 year ago 15
@bigdogITbiker COO COO FOR KOKO PUFFS!!
AirelonTrading 11 months ago
Peter wrote the future many years ago.
Papa8703 1 year ago
Hahaaaa...I can just see the editor/president whatever the fuck sweating his ass off in the controlroom going...Ok...so far he's been talking too intelligently and using too much technical jargon for people to grasp what he's on about...phew...Oh fuck! here he goes: " Everything the government is doing to fight this off..." CUT HIM OFF!!! CUT!!! CUUUT!!! --------------------------------------
mongolenpup 1 year ago 7
@mongolenpup hahaha yeah this is soo funny
chubbamonk151 1 year ago
The reason why Peter did not win the senate election because Corporate America will not let it happened! Banks want the bail out! The crooks in Washington were all bribed by the Banks. America is doom!!!
TheBigdick888 1 year ago 5
Peter Schiff thank you for reminding everyone that Americans have finally maxed out the united states government's credit card
kcmoney1470 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
CNN do not want to hear the truth.
mphet26 1 year ago
he simply tells the truth
mphet26 1 year ago
Ha ha ha! Bullshit. They pulled the plug.
gunsandbullhorns 1 year ago
I cannot BELIEVE this man did not win by a land slide, but I'm sure the media gave him ZERO campaign coverage.
UnoRaza 1 year ago
Peter Schiff for president
superbboys 1 year ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
@superbboys thats exactly what we DONT need, more politicians
sexdrugsRnR 1 year ago
@superbboys CAAARRRAAZYYY IS calling for ya ...
AirelonTrading 11 months ago
nice..."these things happen" and "the invisible hand of the free market" She is a total socialist tool. Have fun in Britain, biggest nanny state in the world.
173airbornemedic 1 year ago 3
I so bet they cut him out.
Peter Schiff, a man of wise words.
F14BigAl 1 year ago 2
hahahahahahhaahahahahaha fcking CNN
rale333 1 year ago
peter schiff rapes the news in the butt hole
TheBlitz1 1 year ago 5
schiff is da man!
cetnik03 1 year ago 4
Schiff is the man.
xTAxGUNZ 1 year ago
@fieldman07 absolutely feel what your saying. What's the point or making an error if you never learn from it? "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it". Refusing to correct it is were many people seem to not understand.
Unity0Is0Power 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
fieldman07 1 year ago
Americans need to make things!! We did that at one point. Our industrial revolution has been eclipsed by Asia helped by the investment of rich Americans. Do you think you belong to or can become that group we call the filthy rich? Keep dreaming. I can foresee about 5 million destitute American citizens marching on Washington DC and taking this nation back by brute force. And if you think you will be a bystander, think again. You will be neck deep in it. So you might as well get engaged now!!
ExtremeRecluse 1 year ago
I imagine a bunch of top Wall Street investment bankers called the CNN news director and said, "Shut him up! We're going to lose money!!!"
MishuTaste 1 year ago 15
@MishuTaste That was a satellite crash. Very obvious. You don't get that screen -- but solid BLACK if they cut him off in the studio. That show is done out of London -- he was in the U-S.
gearscout 1 year ago
Wow, she's a major twat. "These things happen" my ass. She just didn't like what he was saying, even though it was true.
Ichron 1 year ago 3
hilarious! took the guy in charge a long time to figure out which plug to pull
timbrewolf1 1 year ago
Peter Schiff is right on the money.
SandHill711 1 year ago 3
yes we can peter
ymmd
let peter be president
bobby4500 1 year ago
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Hisssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss! It's no wonder bullshit news networks like Communist News Network aka CNN are losing their ratings to smaller independent news sources!
ibislee 1 year ago
That is one cold bitch !
binoyrakesh 1 year ago 4
Somebody in the White House must have pressed the panic button to silenced him off. America sure learnt a lot from Kim Jong Il
0orangepeel0 1 year ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Thanks for posting. The Mrs took me to dinner but fortunately I saw the full episode online today at lastnightstvshows (.) com thankfully!
decisivepush 1 year ago
Well that shut him up. He's the Miss Chleo of market speculation, should have enough money to not have to whore himself out as a belligerent pundit with magic future goggles.
wolverinetwerp 1 year ago
@wolverinetwerp huh? Hes giving advice on what our nation should do that made us fail in that past you blundering idiot
aweiss 1 year ago
@wolverinetwerp You need to take a history class moron. Everything he is saying is just history. Roman Empire ext. But you keep going to work everyday with your fingers crossed dumbass.
theUSER101 1 year ago
@theUSER101 I may very well be wrong. I've been led to believe the decline of the Roman Empire was a result of hundreds of different causes over the period of a century or two. Rome's monetary trouble was only a small factor in the decline. I would love to hear your thoughts on the relating to the decline of the Roman Empire to our economic crisis of today.
wolverinetwerp 1 year ago
@wolverinetwerp LOL lets start that debate off by you giving me a list of the successful fiat currencies...EVER!!!!! They have always failed.
theUSER101 1 year ago