Paul Krugman / Peter Schiff Debate on Rachel Maddow Show

[MrGiggity890]

biased? its ok to be biased when you're right!

[SamuelMoralesJr]

heee

[necrom666]

I would like to see that debate

[jtropeano]

Murphy should debate Krugman, not Schiff. Murphy can stand toe-to-toe with Krugman's shop-talk more so than Schiff.

[menthol5]

Schiff defends and rationalizes why it is necessary for corporations to fuck us over.

[tonybonez]

@menthol5

Not so sure about that. Think about it this way, the corporations have have it pretty good lately. Record profits and they get bailed out if something goes wrong.

Peter Schiff was/is one of the economic advisers to the Ron Paul campaign. So if Schiff was such a schill for the big corporations wouldn't the corporate media be putting a better light on Ron Paul?

They are not--every story about Ron Paul is very negative, that is if they are not ignoring him completely.

[Soonerliberty]

@menthol5 How does removing corporate privileges increase corporate power? All Schiff is asking is for corporation to bear their losses privately instead of socializing costs.  The great irony of the left's position is that by regulating corporations to death, it is actually increasing corporate power by increasing fixed costs, which drives out the small competitor. Only massive corporations can afford the compliance costs and still have some profit left over.

[bladeproject1]

Krugman wont debate Schiff. Hes a cowardly mouthpiece for Goldman Sachs and knows hes wrong.

[PETEYPABLO1977]

Just because Schiff was right about something abvious does not make him right about things that need to happen right now.

[ssmith5342]

There is a reason why Austrian economists have a difficult time arranging a debate with respectable economists. Real economists don't have time to discuss nonsensical conspiracy theories much like real scientists don't have time to have debates with flat-earthers.

[WingThaiJ]

@Krugmanistheking I just get a kick out of your admiration 4someone whos a PhD yet hasn’t gotten his feet wet applyg his craft in real world. My relative was not only a Professor,he lived&breathed it personally,employed people around world&in U.S.& knows how syst wrks by PARTICIPATING DIRECTLY! He considers Krugman a laughable Joke!Were I to need services of a bus management firm,Uthink I’d use a pencil pusher PhD or someone wrkg in real bus environment numerous yrs?What a joke

[WingThaiJ]

@Krugmanistheking Google Paul Krugman is still wrong about Texas..

[WingThaiJ]

@Krugmanistheking over&over again, but do you see this PhD accept this fact? Schiff,on other hand,has hands-on real life training who experiences obstacles which theories could never take into account.The pencil pushers have got to start hangg around w/those who APPLY economics in real world&start qualifyg their positions so they don’t end up appearg like a bunch of idiots.Do U really believe a street wise economist would lk to Greece & Europe & not try to change Obama’s ways?

[WingThaiJ]

@Krugmanistheking It’s quite amusing to see you compare Krugman who has spent his life reading papers behind a desk and has no real life experience seeing how economics works in the real world! All fields of practice develop theories; Keynesian has been proven wrong

[WingThaiJ]

@Krugmanistheking PART D: dealers and mechanics because Obama forced all of those vehicles to be destroyed. Krugman might have advised Obama to stay away from this had he worked in real businesses to see how economic reality behaves in the real world. Krugman is in the business of trying to make his version of what economics should be work in the real world, but throughout history, it never has. He’s a light weight compared to the Austrians.

[WingThaiJ]

@Krugmanistheking PART C:..typically work out as planned. This program not only cost taxpayers much more than the $4,000 credit given to those who purchased new vehicles but it hurt the used auto industry, it hurt charities that rely upon car donations, parts

[WingThaiJ]

@Krugmanistheking PART B: what ‘should’ or ‘ought to be’ not what is.. whenever this happens, you open yourself up for trouble. Something as simple as cash for clunkers proves a simple point; good soundg ideas don’t

[WingThaiJ]

@Krugmanistheking PART A: My relative who worked his way from Rags To Rich’s, who employed people around the world and especially in the U.S., who’s employees loved him and who never used Union workers would have a field day with Krugman as he’s a standing joke for practicing economists. Lib policies are based on

[WingThaiJ]

@Krugmanistheking Krugman, like Obama, plays to economic illiterates. Krugman makes proclamations and leaves out important details which influence outcomes. Typical of a pencil pusher economist who really hasn’t run anything in the real world of business, etc.. The whole Texas claims about jobs is just one of many examples of purposefully left out info as he gets paid to either play ignorant and deceive the public or he has to truly be dumb; pick one.Jim Rogers must be right; Krugman's an idiot

[WingThaiJ]

Paul Krugman is a theorist who gets paid to be ignorant. He has no real life experience.

[ArmednSafe]

What about Bob Murphy, Walter Block, Tom Woods, Tom Dilorenzo, and Doug French? Anyone of them could shred Paul Krugman's Keynesian nonsense.

[TheManiacalSatanist6]

@Krugmanistheking "Secondly, it does not suffice to say that governmental intervention produces misallocation -- or rather in this case, less optimal allocation -- of ressources than the private sector in all cases and circumstances to say Krugman is wrong."

Government intervention has ALWAYS, ALWAYS resulted in the misallocation of resources, since it's bureaucrats who control distribution and their motivation is always political.

[TheManiacalSatanist6]

@Krugmanistheking And yet your analysis is completely absurd because it doesn't take into account the economic conditions of the poor/middle class during that period, and what happened during post-WWII times. Firstly, meat and butter were being rationed, i,e., you couldn't obtain meat and butter LEGALLY without government ration stamps, and during the years after WWII, the government imposed DRACONIAN spending cuts, and it wasn't until after these spending cuts that the depression ended.

[WingThaiJ]

@TheManiacalSatanist6 Google UCLA study; FDR prolonged the depression by 7 years

[biggernworse300]

@Krugmanistheking no one is talking about theory.. we'r taking about the real economy... and if you pride urself with have a theoretical framework but cannot apply that to real life.

If Krugman believes that he is so smart and has all the answers that he should debate Murphy.

[biggernworse300]

ok first off, just because Krugman won a noble prize, that does not give him immunity from being wrong. Ofcouse govt. intervention is bad and causes all kinds of miss allocation of resources. and the reason why i suggested that Dr. Paul or Dr. Woods could win a debate vs. Krugman even though their both not economists, they have a greater understanding of the economy then Krugman, whose greatest idea is to stage a war against an invisible enemy in order to just start the economy LOL..

[ZuzoFriend]

I think the pro-market debater against Krugman should be Jim Rogers

[biggernworse300]

Peter Schiff Rules .. he would dominate and slice and dice krugman.....

for that matter Dr. Ron Paul or tom woods would put krugman in his place

[MegaMixking]

we wont see that debate because Salvysahagun is correct. Schiff would eat him alive.

[ott0Kitam]

I would love to see that debate! Either one, schiff or murphy, would absolutely demolish krugman and his statist garbage economics

[grecorivera]

US treasury bonds are not supported by any real world economic theory. They are being baought by group of meglomaniacs who are in cahoots with and betting on the continuing coersion of foreign marketsby the mafia/extorionist/imperialist domination of the US/british/israel/

alliance.

[boztone]

3) Ever have a debate with a moron? It's not pleasant. In fact, it's extremely frustrating and unpleasant. Still don't understand why Krugman might not want to debate Peter Schiff?

[tonybonez]

@boztone

The bottom line is that Schiff was the main voice screaming that there was a giant bubble ready to pop and that people should be aware of that fact or lost a lot of money. It was the reason he wrote his book "Crashproof". He was the main voice--otherwise the video would have been called "Robert Schiller was right"...it was not. Have you watched "Peter Schiff was right" everyone was laughing at him (out loud) so dont pretend like it was common knowledge.

[boztone]

@tonybonez I'm not sure what video you are talking about since neither Peter Schiff, nor this "Peter Schiff was right video" are as well known as you believe. And predicting a collapse of the bubble in late 2006 is hardly a sign of Schiff's prescience, since prices had finally leveled off and new house construction was slowing down by then. Krugman's "The Return of Depression Economics" written over a decade ago describes our current economic situation much better.

[tonybonez]

@boztone

I saw Schiff make his predictions in "Peter Schiff was right" and "Peter Schiff Mortgage Bankers speech". At the time the idea of a bubble was not in the mainstream (like you seem to imply that it was) and people were actually laughing at him.

Krugan's book, which is actually in the video above if you watch the whole thing, is totally off---this economic collapse was caused by the housing bubble.

I want to know---do you favor Krugman's idea to defend against a fake alien invasion?

[boztone]

@tonybonez No, it definitely was NOT a mainstream idea and I didn't mean to imply that it was. However, there were plenty of people who did call the bubble ranging from economists to people working in the real estate industry and there were also several blogs devoted to tracking the housing bubble.

Housing was just one part (albeit a big part) of our current economic troubles. The other major part was the banking industry that was selling these mortgage backed products and multiplied the risk

[jpollard117]

@boztone Acutally Peter Schiff's views were well known at the time because he was on CNBC frequently. It is just that none of the mainstream economist or media believed him. Watch the Peter Schiff was right video again and see how they laugh at him. Other related videos show the same. Everything Schiff says does not always happen, he is wrong sometimes. But geez - he spelled it out for them on the housing bubble and they were and still are to arogant to even check it out. So, please send links.

[boztone]

@jpollard117 Hey jpollard. FIrst of all, I've never watched CNBC, and I don't know many people who do. So the blogs I used to follow (and still check out from time to time) were Dr. Housing Bubble Blog and The Irvine Housing Bubble. Both started blogging in 2006. And again, you can find Robert Shiller's 2004 paper "Is There a Bubble in the Housing Market" online if you google "Robert Shiller" and "Housing Bubble"

[boztone]

@jpollard117 I also want to add that I live in Southern California, the bubbliest part of the U.S. By 2006, when modest homes were selling for 600-700K... many of us were privately starting to intuit that there was something seriously wrong with the residential real estate industry, especially those of us who weren't already financially invested in housing. The fact that Schiff was going on tv and talking about an impeding housing collapse in late 2006 doesn't really impress me.

[jpollard117]

@boztone wow all those post pretty much stomped a mud hole in your as-. This whole argument is very easy. Just make a bet. An agreement that Krugman will give his nobel prize to Schiff and Schiff will stop giving investing advice/close europacific capital if either is proven wrong. Economy gets all better - K wins, economy explodes S wins. Everone knows Art Laffer, another well know economist, lost his bet to Petter. Roll the tape!

[boztone]

@jpollard117 First of all, you are an idiot. Second... why does Krugman win if the economy gets better? Krugman thinks we'll probably follow in Japan's footsteps and have our own "lost decade".

[jpollard117]

@boztone True. He thinks we need a much larger stimulus. It is hard to make a bet on the overall economy but pick an asumption and go with. it Gold. Jobs, Housing. No one is right every time but overall Krugman is very wrong lately. You don't here him say "I told you so." "Should have listen to me in 2005 about the housing bubble". I'm not so much an idiot just jazzing you for lovin on Krugman. At least I understand New Trade Theory.

[WingThaiJ]

@boztone It's simple, Krugman knows he cannot speak from personal experience..

[boztone]

2) Peter Schiff is not an economist. I don't call myself a mathematician just because I know and use some math.

[tonybonez]

@boztone

What makes somebody an economist?? Does it mean that you have to be totally wrong about the economy like bernanke in his saying that the housing bubble wans't a problem, that subprime was contained, and that home prices would not fall and that the economy was in great shape. Or do you have to want to fight against an imaginary alien attack like Krugman?????

Schiff used his knowledge of economics to reccomend buying silver--it put me through college; watch my other video to see why.

[boztone]

@tonybonez What makes someone an economist is academic training and research in the field of economics. Following the financial news doesn't make someone an economist.  Now if you want to question the value of academic economists, I think there's a lot of justification for that.

I'm not sure what you're what "alien attack" you're referring to, but Krugman is prone to making cheeky comments so I wouldn't take this too seriously.

[tonybonez]

@boztone

We live in an age where everything you say on television gets stored an put on the internet, so where are all of these people who predicted the bubble as accurately and loudly as Schiff. Surely you must have a link. (Surely you must have a link)...(any link)...(anything to substantiate what you say).....(anything)

I will BE HAPPY TO SEND YOU A LINK OF SCHIFF DOING SO---AND ANOTHER OF KRUGMANS ALIEN IDEA!!

[lisabob22]

@tonybonez Peter Schiff is a moron and he used Dean Baker's predictions to try to make a name for himself, only problem was that Baker was predicting this stuff back in 2003.

[tonybonez]

@lisabob22

geez, I just made the video to move forward the economics debate in this country---I still want to hear liberals or Keynesians definitively either endorse or reject Krugan's alien idea (PM me for links of necessary).

Schiff is not by definition a moron; and I am genuinely curious as to why you would say that, I certainly don't all people who have been 100% wrong (like krugman or bernanke or Stieglitz) morns, they are geniuses who happened to be wrong.

WHO IS DEAN BARKER??????????

[boztone]

1) Many people called the housing bubble, including Yale's Robert Shiller, who called both the dot com bubble in the 90s as well as the housing bubble. If Schiff was screaming about the housing bubble in late 2006, he was pretty late to the game, since the housing market was already begging to sour by then. I will give Peter Schiff credit, however, for repeating "I told you so", louder and more incessantly than any one else.

[zenmachinefilms]

I don't think Schiff would want to go for it, though you never know. For one, Schiff isn't an actual economist, he's an investment manager. Second, Schiff hasn't spent too much time in the public hot seat pressured to defend some of his ideas and predictions that didn't pan out, though he does think very well on his feet and speaks well.

Krugman doesn't spend his time in investment circles, so he may not know much about Schiff actually, though he probably knows who he is.

[tonybonez]

@zenmachinefilms

Schiff would go or it because he has publicly challenged him to debate many times. Also Bob Murphy has offered $100,000 to go to charity for Krugman to debate him. Krugman refuses!! He definitely knows about it.

What makes someone an "actual" economist? To be an "actual economist do you have to wish for a housing bubble like Krugman did or pretend it is not a real problem like Bernanke did?

If you accurately predict what is going to happen with the economy you arent "actual"

[bootiack]

sweet reverse letterings

[BigMoInAZ]

So MadCow hasn't taken you up on the challenge YET? Murphy should be invited to any debate as well!

[tonybonez]

@BigMoInAZ

not yet still waiting---and I think I will be for a while, but I hope congressman Paul wins the nomination so we can really see the debate about these ideas between him and Obama.

[Salvysahagun]

Peter Schiff would eat Krugman alive!

[lisabob22]

@Salvysahagun and Schiff still would be wrong and Krugman right. Schiff diet does not make him right, and Schiff words make him a fucking idiot. The facts completely prove Schiff wrong again and again

[Salvysahagun]

@lisabob22

1.) Ron Paul, Thom Woods, Steven Horwitz and just about every other Austrian follower made the prediction around the same time Dean did.

2.) Dean only mentioned the bubble once.

3.) "Allan Greenspan needs to replace the Nasdaq bubble with a housing bubble" - Paul Krugman. 2002.

4.) Are you trolling me?

[Knossos22]

@Salvysahagun

Schiff has a real problem. He is arrogant and constantly interrupts. Not only does this not produce real understanding, it is a fantastic way to loose an election...

[Salvysahagun]

@Knossos22

I'm a Schiff fan... But I'll have to agree with you on that topic.

[biggernworse300]

@Salvysahagun Peter would have him for breakfast, lunch and dinner LOL ... Krugman wants to stage a war against an invisible alien force to jump start the economy LOL LOL ...

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun Let's see almost every one of Paul Krugman's predictions about the economy over the past ten years have been correct and Peter Schiff just recently predicted hyperinflation in 2010.  Schiff is not a real economist, he is a stooge.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." - Paul Krugman 2002

Krugman had no business being listened to this time around.

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun Typical Austrian bogus attack that is easy to shoot down. Two weeks after Krugman made that statement in an NYtimes editorial dated Aug. 16, 2002 entitled Mind the Gap, he wrote that was "worried" about the possibility of a housing bubble: "House prices have run well ahead of rents, suggesting that people are now buying houses for speculation rather than merely for shelter...If we do have a housing bubble, and it bursts, we'll be looking a lot too Japanese for comfort." Checkmate!

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

Here is the sequel

"As Mr. McCulley predicted, interest rate cuts led to soaring home prices, which led in turn not just to a construction boom but to high consumer spending, because homeowners used mortgage refinancing to go deeper into debt. All of this created jobs to make up for those lost when the stock bubble burst. Now the question is what can replace the housing bubble" - Paul Krugman 2005

Krugman a proud supporter of the bubble economy !

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun Oh is that what you conclude after your in-depth google-search cherry-picked research? Ha! You only understand Krugman through the lens of the Mises institute's skewed, incorrect research. How about reading the whole article "Running out of Bubbles" in context rather than cherry-picking some out-of-context bit. In the article he is not advocating the creation of more bubbles, he is pointing out a looming housing crisis and the fact that there is nowhere else to go for the Fed.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

You realize that is the Keynsian solution? right monetary stimulus which always leads to bubbles. The amount of money should be a result of increased production issue via government via public works projects

Actually what you said is what he said after housing prices plummeted.

Try READING Dubyas double dip. its clearly says "NEEDS TO REPLACE" not "CAN REPLACE"

You realize he was one of the lead engineers in the bailout? right?

he said Alan Gr

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun How about you respond to my earlier remarks instead of continuing to orgasm over some taken-out-of-context bit that Paul Krugman wrote in 2002 which you grossly misinterpret! Also stop misconstruing Keynesian economics and Krugman's economics as "bubble economics." Keynes recognized the danger of speculative bubbles (General Theory, 142) as does Krugman ("Mind the Gap," 2002). Or are you just too in love with your skewed image of Krugman to bother to do research?

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

boosting demand will fix the problem in the short term but only increase prices in the long run. as a result we've had rampant inflation since the 1970s. (After 40 years we still haven't got inflation below 1950s and 1960s levels) and with the combination of Keynes and Free Trade most industrialized nations are no longer industrialized but rather consumerized. Which in my mind have forced nations to socialize certian industries other wise markets would create a race to the bottom.

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun Your fears of inflation are overstated. Deflation can be just as harmful as inflation, and libertarians never seem to recognize that. The measures you call for (returning to the gold standard and killing inflation) may sound noble. But trying to pursue such a policy could have catastrophic effects on society. Kinda like Stalin's communism. Collectivized farming certainly sounded noble, but it had a brutal impact upon society.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

The dollar is significantly weaker now then in the 1930s. Deflationary route would work as it did in 1920 under Warren Harding. However you can't let those policies become Standard because in the long run they will lead to fuedalist like societies. Thier are multiple ways to get out of a recession. If the money supply contracts its not insane to bring wages and prices down along with m3

/watch?v=sV7vjDNON2w

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun The dollar's strength and weakness is relative to other currencies. The fact that the dollar's numerical value isn't the same as it was in the 1930s doesn't tell us really anything. In fact if the dollar is too strong against other currencies, it can be a bad thing.  Then it makes it harder to sell your products at a competitive price. China deliberately keeps the renminbi devalued for that very reason. How do you bring wages and prices down without government mandate?

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

The only thing keeping the dollar propped up is its fony Reserve Currency Status.

The reason we don't have Deflation is because of the QE. Downsize Government and Wages not Monetary expansion allow the contraction to occur and you'll have your recovery. If the Money Supply contracts so should everything else. Its worked before we did in 1920-1921 peak unemployment with at 12%. Typically you'd want New Deal Regulations so it would never get this bad.

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun You have a lot of strong opinions but you need to organize your thoughts better and at least attempt to fully understand opposing viewpoints before misrepresenting them. Also get your facts straight. Most subprime loans were not government-backed, that's just simple fact. The recession of 1920-21 was inflation-fighting not deflation-fighting like our current recession now. The high inflation caused by WWI spending made the value of our debt extremely low.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

Harding cut the size of government, cut taxes, and told the private sector to cut wages. 9 month recovery

Hoover tripled government spending, rose his wages (Davis Beacon Act), rose taxes (23% to 65%), Told private sector to keep high wages, initiated most public works projects used in the New Deal.- 15 year recovery

Those are just facts. You don't need to be bias to come to a decent conclusion.

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun Random factoids don't speak for themselves. We need more facts and strong inference to make something of the factoids. Harding was a lame duck president, not a hero. Coolidge believed in fanciful, bubble-causing laissez-faire economics. Hoover raised taxes but was vehemently opposed to printing more money and deficit spending. Much of his spending was to pay down the national debt not stimulating the economy. He thought that paying down debt would revitalize the economy. Bad idea.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

Behold Herbert Hoovers Stimulus Package!!!!!

/watch?v=9Z44gRBwLm8

Hoover was a Keynsian. plain and simple.

Just because a president wasn't an activist doesn't mean he is a bad president. If Please look up Thom Woods speech on the 1921 recession.

the 1920s where a giant Monetary Expansion. Something Keynsians fail to mention.

Hoover ran up the defecit buddy. FDR rediculed him for reckless borrowing and FDRs running mate accused him of "Leading us down the road to socialism"

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun The stimulus speech came as acquiescence to negative public opinion over Hoover. Hoover was certainly no Keynesian (didn't you claim earlier that FDR wasn't Keynesian? If he isn't Keynesian, then how is Hoover?). Hoover ran up the deficit very very slightly in 1931. But this was barely anything compared to the deficit spending after FDR took office in 1932. The Hoover "leading us to socialism" quote is over the Smoot-Hawley Tariff not the deficit spending.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

A monetary stimulus is a bubble.

What do you think caused housing prices to rise?

The rise in housing prices was nothing more then classic inflation.

The Fed printed money to buy homes. Plain and simple.

We should move to outlaw credit default swaps, among all other forms of dirivatives.

You can look up my "solutions" to monetary and banking reform on Occupy Wall Street with user name "AmuroRay"

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun If bubbles are moderate, spread out, and diversified, they aren't necessarily bad, but just a necessary byproduct of the economy in any nation-state. Speculative bubbles, though, are bad. Also when the rate of prices on houses were increasing like they did in the mid-2000s, that was bad. But the gov't and the fed only had an indirect effect on the housing bubble. The lack of regulation and subprime lending (most of which was not backed by the gov't) were the leading causes.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

60% was government backed. F&F, FHA, CRA, and CRA "Credits" comprised the 60%

A bubble is a bubble and will always pop. Doesn't matter how diversified they are.

You should look up the Austrian Business cycle. Its 100% true but what they don't tell you is its 100% preventable. Very simply is you destroy central banking and start issuing debt free money money Lincoln styled. That way you can build infrastructure and not worry about contractions.

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun Yeah, 60% if you rely on fudged incorrect data. That's a bogus number. Federal Reserve data show that in 2006 84% of subprime loans originated in the private sector and were not gov't backed.

Bubbles are a fact of life in any free market economy. Austrian theorists are naive to think that they have a way of avoiding the creation of bubbles. The gov't needs to do its best to stabilize the economy against speculation fever. But when it deliberately deregulates it's problematic.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

Read "Great American Bank Robbery by Paul Sperry"

CRA isn't government backed. Don't forget subsidies for issuing more CRA loans than where required.

The Fed actually first engadged in Monetary expansion during the Roaring 20s. FYI

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun I've looked at the book. This is more historical revisionism emanating from the right-wing that blames the government and the fed for everything while believing in the fairy tale world that would exist without it. You and your boyfriend Sperry should move to Somalia. Libertarian paradise there.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

Well Libertarians apparently need a rule of law. But don't forget that since the fall of the state an average somolian salary has tripled. Life expectancy went uo 5 years, literacy rate is up 14% higher then only thing that suffered dramatically is access to clean water.

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun How do you have rule of law without a strong central government? Someone needs to enforce the law. Do you suppose that the good will of 'free' people will self-enforce? Also, you're sort of forgetting a huge famine that is going in Somalia. It is funny how the libertarians and Austrians try to defend Somalia as if it is doing better than its neighbors by virtue of the lack of central government there. Classic.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

I don't know mabey how to Jefferson, and Jackson proposed.

Obviously I don't agree with Anarchy. I think progress is more important but the last REAL progressive in America had to be John F. Kennedy.

Great Society programs where just price drivers.

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun Scratching my head. You promote the Austrian Business Cycle Theory as if it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Then you seemingly praise JFK when he himself promoted government spending and not tax cuts as a means of putting money in people's hands. Just look at the big picture, the US since FDR has become one of the strongest most advanced economies ever seen in this world. In addition it is a pretty fair country. Yet it pursued semi-Keynesian policies 1945-1979.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342 I'm gunna have to message you.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

Basically the oligarchs are setting up a fork in the road that both lead to self destruction

One road (left) you have the Keynesian Consumer debt society (Soros)

the other road (right) you have imaginary "Free Trade and Free Market" which will advocate deflation and like Keynes may work once or twice but will kill society in the long run. (Koch)

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun OK I see you're critical of far-right libertarians. But you curiously voice their same concerns about inflation and the like. There is a natural rate of inflation that can actually have a positive effect on society. As long as there is production to back it up.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

America is 70% Consumption. No production

That is what Keynesian Policies have brought us!!

Please view that video in the last post

(3/3)

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun Consumerism is certainly a problem. But how did Keynesian policies get us here?? The 1950s and 1960s were huge production boom decades when Keynesian policies were largely applied.

It seems like you spend too much time reading stuff at the Von Mises institute. You should read Jeffery Rogers Hummel, "Problems with Austrian Business Cycle Theory." It's an old article (but so is ABCT), but it touches on a number of points that ABCT simply ignore.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

Because Keynse's thinks spending money creates economic growth. That is how we justify consumerism.

Demand is a function of bidding. think about it that way.Debt based Money expansion will lead bubbles. It did in the housing bubble. We did just what Krugman perscribed that is the point of the quote. Because Alan Greenspan did just that is the entire reason why Keynes is descrited.

Money should be destributed via public works NOT Banks.

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun I think you are imagining a world that does not, or at least cannot exist. And in your world spending isn't necessary for economic growth? Also, banks shouldn't distribute money? Are you suggesting we go completely off of a fiat currency and back to some sort of a barter system? Your worries are overstated (hyperinflation isn't coming soon, inflation is already well below target) and your ideal world doesn't factor in the realities of nation-state world in which we live.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

you just proved you have been brainwashed by the establishment.

/watch?v=h8qLkpA_PSs - Study some History

I worked for Frannie Mae buddy. Sperry provided citations. You don't have to agree with his assertions, nor should you.

Even a 20% Contribution is great way to create a bubble. Plus Cheap money.

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun You're starting to prove yourself to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist who thinks that anything 'establishment' is inherently wrong. I study history plenty, just not the revisionist borderline conspiracy theory history you read (and are brainwashed by). Lots of people worked for Fannie Mae. This doesn't mean that they understand the economy than everyone else. Sperry's a hack.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

The data is their. Stop ignoring it. Government made housing desirable and monetary expansion allowed speculators to attack.

Every historian know that History is always told from the winners point of view of the winner and thats not just for wars

"The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses."-Albert Einstein

Don't just listen to the text book and teacher union nonsense

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

Its either gunna be run away inflation or double dip recession. The Fed cannot keep interest rates this low for this long.

Classical or Keynsian Economics don't understand the realities of a Nation-State System

At least Austrian Economics don't change law to do what they want.

Google- Friedrich List

(4/4)

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun It can't interest rates low for this long? Where is the bubble being created that it needs to fight by raising rates? Oh and Keynesians arbitrarily change their laws after the fact? Austrians live in a fairy-tale world far removed from reality. Keynesians acknowledge the facts of the world that we live in and try to make due with what we have. Keynes' policies worked very well until they were derailed by charlatan supply-side economists who deregulated the system in the 80s.

[Salvysahagun]

Austrians actually understand supply and demand. Wheras Keynesianism is just plain consumerism. the higher you demand is the weaker your currency will be.

The dollar is given value based on what you can buy with it. in short Production. demand will devalue the currency. Since the progressive era the dollar has lost 90% of its value. Production comes first.

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun You grossly mischaracterize Keynesianism. For one there are many different strands of Keynesianism. According to most New-Keynesians deficit spending is needed to stimulate the economy in recessions and in times of surplus when the economy is overheating, interest rates should be raised and the gov't should pay down debt. Who cares about the current value of the dollar relative to its value in the past. What matters is its value relative to other currencies. The dollar's fine.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

Supply Side economics worked great. Increase in Supply will decrease prices.

We increased the supply money with tax cuts and monetary expansion. and guess what happened? the dollar went down!

I think the 80s where better than the 1970s.

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun Too much supply of something also creates bubbles. There can come a tipping point in which there is too much investment in creating products and not enough return. Supply doesn't create its own demand. You're right, the 80s were better than the 70s (at least for the wealthy) largely because of the oil spike in the 70s. However, the 80s were also a period of deregulation which set the stage for erratic booms and busts in the market.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

read the whole article Dubyas Double dip. It stands on its own. I can't stand journalist that try to explain themselves latter. "An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it. " - JFK. (I think some guy before him said this also)

That was a direct quote from Krugman on Bernanke btw

5/5

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun I have read it. PK appears to be calling for a housing bubble (probably in a sort of jesting, not serious tone). Two weeks later he writes a op-ed expressing worry over a speculative housing bubble. This proves that he is well aware of the danger of speculative bubbles. In the article he is correcting himself, but elaborating on his views. In an op-ed you only have so many words you are allowed to write. Libertarians grossly distort PK's views and create a straw man out of him.

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun Also stop asking dumb rhetorical questions as if I am some idiot. I can do the same thing with you. You do realize that Murray Rothbard equated taxation to theft implying the illegitimacy of the nation-state? You do realize that many Austrians refer to themselves as anarcho-capitalists? You realize that you have no understanding of Keynesian economics? Stop sounding like a goddamn conspiracy theorist. I have already rebutted your claims and you can't even respond to them.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

Not an Austrian, they focus way to much on law and not how to deal with those laws. Both Rothbard, & Mises both stated they are not a System of Economics. They have the most accurate business cycle no doubt. Keynesian Economics was used in Nazi Germany. Franklin Roosevelt couldn't stand Keynes on his visit. New Deal Treasury Secretary Henry Morganthau denied Keynesian Economic's to the grave as did labor secretary Francis Perkins.

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun OK, well you certainly are a libertarian. Anyhow, you're getting off topic and stating a bunch of random factoids without telling me what this is supposed to imply about Keynesian economics. Just because the Nazi Party used a blend of national/statist and sort of creative Keynesian policies (which actually worked quite well for them economically) doesn't imply that Keynes or US Keynesians were sympathetic to the Nazis. Economic policy and politics are two different things.

[Salvysahagun]

@ssmith5342

"Not a day has gone by since this crisis began that I haven’t been thankful that Ben Bernanke is the chairman of the Fed" -Paul Krugman 2009

[ssmith5342]

@Salvysahagun Uh, you do realize that Krugman has also been critical of Bernanke, especially over the last two years?

[ForAVoluntarySociety]

Forget Schiff. I want Bob Murphey vs Krugman

[tonybonez]

@ForAVoluntarySociety

interesting. why??

maybe I am biased for Schiff, I volunteered for his senate campaign and listened to his advice to invest in silver and make a lot of money. I like Murphy also.

Hey, thanks for watching though!!

[pureaggression]

OH, i know id enjoy it ;-)

[AroundSun]

Note to all collectivist commentating. You all can start your own communal living system right here in the US! There are enough you big government liberal no experience morons both rich and poor. So why not just do it? What are you waiting for? Hollywood liberals, law school liberals, professors, and politicians. You can do it here in the United States and have community healthcare! Just don't put a gun to MY head and FORCE me into it. I will sit back to see just how well it works...

[AroundSun]

"While republicans dismiss these ideas for political reasons"

Hey jackass, have you ever read the constitution? Have you ever once thought that maybe the DEMOCRATS push programs and taxes for "POLITICAL REASONS". You guys are absolutely brain dead. Have you ever used the word freedom once in your life.

[tonybonez]

@AroundSun

I was paraphrasing Krugman's appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show when I said "While republicans dismiss these ideas for political reasons", not stating my own beliefs..

Anyway thanks for watching....at least part of the video!!!!!

[KimInLosAngeles]

I think it will be more interesting to see Max Keiser debating Krugman.

I like & respect Max Keiser, Peter Schiff, & Rachel Maddow.

[navyandorange]

Krugman has been avoiding debating Robert Murphy, there is no chance he risks debating Woods, Schiff or Murphy.

Personally I think a 3 on 3 debate would be very entertaining and enlightening.

You should start a MONEY BOMB FOR DEBATE to up the ante.

It should be online and 60 minutes or 20/20 should cover it.

[tonybonez]

@navyandorange

I appreciate your enthusiasm, and great idea!!!!! A 3 on 3 debate would be great---Woods, Schiff, and Murphy vs. Krugman, Bernanke, and who else..... (though Bernanke might not be legally allowed to)

I will look into how to start a money bomb--any recommendations?? I know Bob Murphy raised over $58k for a debate which shows how people want to see this..

I will also email 60 minuted and 20/20......try and contact any economists you know to see if we can make this happen.

[ProIndividual]

@tonybonez the third douche has to be Robert Reich

[SocialistaTribalista]

mistake, I meant Makoto Itoh

[SocialistaTribalista]

As a socialist I think the idea is a very good one, bringing to light issues to a level depth never really explored on television, however much I might disagree with both it would prove to be as stimulating a debate as an american audience has seen in a VERY long time.

Though I'd also recommend someone like a Kozo Uno, or Andrew Kliman.

[guyjohn59]

I think a robert murphy peter schiff tag team would be the best. krugman can bring larry summers

[KugelForBreakfast]

Sounds like you missed the entire point of the video. Austrian economists understand basic economics. They disagree on theory.

Plus, $100,000 for charity is a waste of nobody's time.

[AntiSchiff]

How to profit from the coming economic collapse? lol Schiff did everything exactly wrong in '08. His book is crap.

And maybe on reason Krugman won't waste his valuable time with stockbrokers like Schiff is because neither Schiff nor his fans are capable of even understanding basic economics.

[Lengarces]

@AntiSchiff, I am with you. I am sooo happy that I did not listen to Schiff many years ago when he was advising his crazy followers to buy gold & silver I am so lucky to have kept all my money in realestate, cd's and in the stock market. People who were buying Gold & Silver back then must be kicking themselves right about now. Hey dude, I just had a great idea. I bet this would be a great time to put all our money in US Treasury Bonds. What do you think? You with me?

[AntiSchiff]

@Lengarces

watch?v=0V5YJZIW-_I

watch?v=jnI7zmXp7NQ

[tonyteb]

@Lengarces lots of luck

[cketterl78]

@Lengarces ummmm, hindsight is 20-20, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and everyone is wrong/lucky sometimes blah blah blah. How do you feel about people who put all their money into gold 10 years ago vs the stock market. They could claim the same fallacious counter argument that schiff served them well. In real money terms Gold has absolutely destroyed the Stock Market since the dot com bubble btw.

[TheManiacalSatanist6]

@Lengarces This comment was made 10 months ago. So, with the government bordering on collapse and bond markets going haywire right now, you STILL want to put your money in bonds?

Peter Schiff schooled every single one of you clowns, and the history proves it.

[cabgt]

@AntiSchiff lol, Keynesian ideas is what has got the world into the mess it's in. Spend spend spend! How's that working out for individuals!!

[Ayokalyb]

@AntiSchiff Your opinion is shit. In fact, gold has gone up 5000% since 2007. So if I had $10,000 in gold, I would now have $50,000... if you're feeble mind is incapable of such equations. If you are denying the fact that the price of gold and the swiss franc directly reflects inflation, than YOU are the one who doesn't understand basic economics. Your logic is asinine.

[AntiSchiff]

@Ayokalyb

lmao That's 500%, stupid. You can even do grade school math. lmao And that's an averagfe annualized return of about 17.5% over the past 10 years, which is crap to real investors. You can't get rich with that ROR, moron.

[52111centrumcz]

@AntiSchiff

Better than being an idiot an losing money on nasdaq, CDs, housing market.... to gain a little is much better than losing a lot, even if you don't gain the maximum possible

[samm1809]

i was actually THINKING of something like that a few days ago.

[prqd112]

schiff has said many times that he'd love to debate him. i doubt krugman would agree to get his ass pounded tho.