@heropsycho

A. Because we've been leaning on monetary policy as our intervention of choice. Direct employment has been called socialism for 30 years. That doesn't suggest a dominant Keynesian ideology. Really it's been this mix of monetarism and supply-side economics which morphed into some mutilated crony-capitalism.

B. I suppose it could happen, but it would take a rough business climate, or some flunky MBAs. In that situation I'd try to increase my business (i.e. make $200,000).

C. That's why we have food stamps. It isn't a perfect solution, but the kid starves if her folks spend the whole check on smokes too. Vices aren't the kind of "demand side" stimulus I'd like to see (one flaw in the Keynesian argument given the current living conditions of the American poor).

D. I really do believe that if the FDIC didn't exist, "the market" would not have allowed deposits to be leveraged by banks investing in exotic financial instruments. Like you said, even the bankers didn't know what the hell they were doing! Without the FDIC people would very quickly ask, "what the hell you doin' with my money?" Rather, since their money is backed by the government they ask, "what sorts of rates are you offering?" It's that pressure from the distorted marketplace that pushed banks into more and more leverage to stay competitive. Those rates were realized by making massively leveraged bets that were only possible by hedging with exotic instruments. Once upon a time people knew their banker. I think that's the best FDIC there could be. There might be some legal patchwork of the Glass-Steagall flavor that might make it work, but chasing down all the unintended consequences would be a challenge. Certainly figuring out how to unwind all the securitized mortgages that already exist makes that sort of policy direction seemingly prohibitive.

F-. Dude, Peter Schiff is a quack.

A. I don't understand how you're arguing we haven't been practicing Keynesian economics since the Great Depression. We've run deficits almost the entire time, lowered interest rates even further during recessions, and enact stimulus when recessions hit in the form of tax rebate checks, income tax cuts to consumers, gov't programs to provide jobs to increase demand, extended unemployment, etc., although we normally do a poor job of running surpluses when we should. But in a nutshell, that is Keynesian economics. And it has worked pretty well overall. Influence of monetarist policies have tamed the Keynesian interventions, but there's little doubt that all the above actions in the last two recessions were born of Keynesian thought.

B. If a business is making $100,000 off your labor, but is paying you $80,000, resulting in a $20,000 profit, why wouldn't they fire you if they could fire someone to do your job for $50,000, resulting in a 250% increase in profit? It does happen. I was the victim of it in 2004.

C. If the devils in the details could be worked out, and that's a big if, I'd be in favor of having stipulations to unemployment benefits. But you got a lot of issues you'd have to deal with. What if the person on unemployment has kids? You're gonna deny them welfare if the kids would starve? Very complicated issue as just one example.

I do think though we need in this age better education to retrain workers for the new jobs that come into the US as jobs get outsourced to other countries.

D. About the FDIC... First off, you're saying that people could check the banks' ability to make too risky of loans, but it's a whole other thing to say FDIC insurance encourages bad lending. It's simply not true. Again, regardless if deposits are insured or not, banks will go under if they make risky loans regardless of deposit insurance for consumers in most cases. Again, bailouts are a whole other issue. As for people checking the banks for bad lending, that's a pipe dream. The general consumer has no clue what are good or bad loans overall, nor the time to monitor the lending practices of banks. Hell, BANKERS didn't understand the crap they got themselves into in the mortgage crisis until it was too late, and they're professionals in the field. It's not a practical solution. On top of all that, the FDIC does in some ways help to ensure baseline qualities of banks. Not every bank can be FDIC insured, and many of the regulations FDIC insist upon make the banks more solvent, etc. So when consumers insist the bank is FDIC insured, they're insuring their deposits as well as guaranteeing a minimal level of integrity in the bank itself.

Lastly, I'm totally down with reasoned dialogue, even from points of view I completely oppose. I'm not slamming this guy because he's a conservative. I'm slamming him because he made ridiculous claims that are obviously factually inaccurate. Ideology shouldn't blind people from obvious fact that don't fit.

>> ^bmacs27:

@heropsycho
I'd disagree with you on a couple of points.

However, I will say once again, Keynesian economics works. We've practiced it since the Great Depression, and it works without a doubt.
First of all, we haven't really practiced Keynesian economics since stagflation during Carter. The decoupling of inflation and growth was very troubling to economists as the Keynesian theory had no explanation for it. In the period between Carter and Obama, we effectively practiced Monetarist economics, or "supply-side" economics. It's that economic policy everyone is railing against even though it was practiced during one of the periods of greatest growth in our history (obviously there are confounds, e.g. the personal computer). The Austrians just don't think that demand focused interventions will work any better than supply focused interventions. There is always a deadweight loss to taxation.

Profit centers do in fact get outsourced, although granted not as often as cost centers. Why would a company not outsource a profit center if it would increase profits in the long run?
Profit centers are most often NOT outsourced. If there is another profit center abroad, you expand, you don't fire the guy that's making you more money than he's costing you.

And prolonging unemployment has also provided an artificial market for goods and services for those who do have jobs. It's not so simple to suggest that extended unemployment is a disincentive to work. It's also providing those who are collecting it who actually can't find another job with income to spend, which props the entire economy up. It's not an either/or; it's both. And there are far more people right now on unemployment who cannot find another job than those holding out for something that pays what they're used to.
I understand the demand side argument. I'm saying, rather than giving them money for nothing, let's give them money to become hirable. It's similar to saying that the money handed to banks should have had conditions attached. When people are begging for money, they ought to accept some stipulations.

Finally, bear in mind that when it comes to finding common ground, and that kind of thing, you cannot find common ground with people who are fundamentally altering obvious fact to suit their views. Schiff made to completely ludicrous claims (child labor was ended by the market, and the FDIC deposit insurance fuels bank speculation). Both claims are preposterous.
I agree with you about child labor, however I'd disagree with you about the FDIC. People should be paying attention to what banks do with their money, and respond to poor decision making with the withdrawal of their deposits. Instead, they just assume it doesn't matter (in terms of risk) where they keep their money and just shop for the highest interest rate. Those higher interest rates are most often fueled by more than traditional lending (as anyone banking in such a manner would lose deposits to higher yields in the distorted marketplace).
Also, I'm Keynesian. I just don't think free market viewpoint you'd read in the Economist, Financial Times, WSJ, or any other reasonably reputable conservative source is being well represented on this website. If we all cheerlead for one team, we'll never substantially challenge our own groupthink.

@heropsycho

I'd disagree with you on a couple of points.


However, I will say once again, Keynesian economics works. We've practiced it since the Great Depression, and it works without a doubt.

First of all, we haven't really practiced Keynesian economics since stagflation during Carter. The decoupling of inflation and growth was very troubling to economists as the Keynesian theory had no explanation for it. In the period between Carter and Obama, we effectively practiced Monetarist economics, or "supply-side" economics. It's that economic policy everyone is railing against even though it was practiced during one of the periods of greatest growth in our history (obviously there are confounds, e.g. the personal computer). The Austrians just don't think that demand focused interventions will work any better than supply focused interventions. There is always a deadweight loss to taxation.


Profit centers do in fact get outsourced, although granted not as often as cost centers. Why would a company not outsource a profit center if it would increase profits in the long run?

Profit centers are most often NOT outsourced. If there is another profit center abroad, you expand, you don't fire the guy that's making you more money than he's costing you.


And prolonging unemployment has also provided an artificial market for goods and services for those who do have jobs. It's not so simple to suggest that extended unemployment is a disincentive to work. It's also providing those who are collecting it who actually can't find another job with income to spend, which props the entire economy up. It's not an either/or; it's both. And there are far more people right now on unemployment who cannot find another job than those holding out for something that pays what they're used to.

I understand the demand side argument. I'm saying, rather than giving them money for nothing, let's give them money to become hirable. It's similar to saying that the money handed to banks should have had conditions attached. When people are begging for money, they ought to accept some stipulations.


Finally, bear in mind that when it comes to finding common ground, and that kind of thing, you cannot find common ground with people who are fundamentally altering obvious fact to suit their views. Schiff made to completely ludicrous claims (child labor was ended by the market, and the FDIC deposit insurance fuels bank speculation). Both claims are preposterous.

I agree with you about child labor, however I'd disagree with you about the FDIC. People should be paying attention to what banks do with their money, and respond to poor decision making with the withdrawal of their deposits. Instead, they just assume it doesn't matter (in terms of risk) where they keep their money and just shop for the highest interest rate. Those higher interest rates are most often fueled by more than traditional lending (as anyone banking in such a manner would lose deposits to higher yields in the distorted marketplace).

Also, I'm Keynesian. I just don't think free market viewpoint you'd read in the Economist, Financial Times, WSJ, or any other reasonably reputable conservative source is being well represented on this website. If we all cheerlead for one team, we'll never substantially challenge our own groupthink.

First of all, Schiff didn't get schooled, unless you count him appealing to the disbandment of the EPA, FDA, and Board of Education as him schooling himself. The protester he chose to verbsterbate over was not interested in the kind of 'debate' Schiff was looking for. Or, perhaps, that's what it's supposed to look like with the dude in the suit staring down a protester in a keffiyeh, and Schiff got what he wanted, firing up his fellow suit-wearer base. Looks pretty allegorical to me, though.

Anyway marbles, crosswords: Crosswords' post regarding the arguments Schiff is making were more or less in line with the points Schiff spoke. #1 is more in line, @1:25s Schiff makes the argument that corporations 'need' to move their production elsewhere because Americans demand lower prices than corps can profit from if production is in the US. Crossroads' statement of Schiff's position as: "AMERICAN WORKERS ARE DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND LOWER PRICES THAN CORPORATIONS CAN PROFIT FROM" is entirely in line with what Schiff is saying, simply adding that workers in the US want more money than workers elsewhere, which I'm sure Schiff himself wouldn't argue with.

Crossroads' #2 argument is a bit more of an extension of Schiff's ideas however I think it emerges out of the sentiment expressed by Schiff about the CEO of Apple having a right to give people jobs wherever he wants. The point being made by the protester is that Steve has an obligation to the US, from which he has gained so much, to try to keep manufacturing jobs in the US (another argument for another time, please) to which Schiff says @1:05 "The American people don't own those jobs. Steve Jobs has a right to manufacture where he wants." Now Crossroads' "I WORKED HARD TO EARN EVERYTHING I GOT, SO I DESERVE TO KEEP IT ALL AND DO WHATEVER I WANT" certainly echoes that sentiment. Also, I think you can glean that sentiment from virtually all of what Schiff is saying, from the Apple manufacturing to the abolishment of the various gov't agencies (I can explain that specific point more if you'd like, but think it would be beside the point right now).

So I really do feel like Crossroads' paraphrasing of Schiff's statements is entirely within the realm of the reasonable. And even where they're pushing those boundaries to call them 'douchey' arguments certainly seems baseless. So, marbles, do you have any anything to say about the content of Crossroad's rebuttals to the arguments Schiff has presented?

Your video, Peter Schiff vs. Cornell West on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

bmacs27,

I actually agree with a lot of what you just wrote. Market interventions won't fix many of our problems. I'm not in favor of complete mortgage forgiveness. Printing the money to do this would cause hyper-inflation and would wreck the economy. Not to mention the fact that mortgages within people's retirement benefits would become worthless, destroying retirement plans.

However, I will say once again, Keynesian economics works. We've practiced it since the Great Depression, and it works without a doubt.

Profit centers do in fact get outsourced, although granted not as often as cost centers. Why would a company not outsource a profit center if it would increase profits in the long run?

And prolonging unemployment has also provided an artificial market for goods and services for those who do have jobs. It's not so simple to suggest that extended unemployment is a disincentive to work. It's also providing those who are collecting it who actually can't find another job with income to spend, which props the entire economy up. It's not an either/or; it's both. And there are far more people right now on unemployment who cannot find another job than those holding out for something that pays what they're used to.

Finally, bear in mind that when it comes to finding common ground, and that kind of thing, you cannot find common ground with people who are fundamentally altering obvious fact to suit their views. Schiff made to completely ludicrous claims (child labor was ended by the market, and the FDIC deposit insurance fuels bank speculation). Both claims are preposterous.

@NetRunner Honestly, I'm unimpressed. Peter Schiff may not be John Nash, but you sound like Chris Matthews. Do you get your economic wisdom from Mother Jones or HuffPo?


So the response to "I doubt he's really paying 50% in taxes" is not to recount even a hypothetical example of how someone could wind up paying a sum total of 50% in taxes, but instead to just argue that the dubious statement might feel true because there are many various taxes someone might be paying?

Hypothetical example (which I thought I outlined for you): Peter Schiff owns/runs a business as his primary mode of income. That business pays a 35% corporate tax rate on their profits. The remaining profits translate into capital gains, which are then taxed at 15%. While obviously the tax rates aren't perfectly additive (15% of 65% is smaller than 15% of 100%), you can still see how one could quickly approach 50% in taxes. I haven't even included any local taxes or consumption taxes. These aren't dubious statements. These are facts about the tax code which progressives should learn to wise up to. There is a valid point there about streamlining the tax code. Like you said... Meh.


The response to my argument about the impact of marginal tax increases on employment is to make some argument about Schiff's personal labor/leisure preferences? That has nothing to do with it at all. If Schiff is the entrepreneurial capitalist he claims to be (and not just the F-list media personality he seems to be), then he doesn't really do any direct labor, he just makes choices about allocations of capital -- he makes investment decisions, and business deals where all the real work is done by other people.

He's making the case that if he has to pay a few more percentage points in taxes, he's going to start walking away from making investment deals that would have made his company money and employed people. Hell, he goes so far as to say that he would dissolve his ostensibly profitable business and fire all his employees, rather than sell it to someone else who still likes making money, even if they have to pay taxes.

Making investment deals and business decisions isn't quite like arguing on the internet and playing video games. You have to meet people, negotiate, spend basically all day on the phone or in a plane. You don't have much time for your family (though I don't know if he has one). While it may not be coal mining, it's certainly work. It's at least as much work as the people typing things into excel between trips to the water cooler are doing. It's quite possible that if he were to decide to leave, or cut back his hours worked (because of government disincentive), the firm would downsize or even fail. All those workers whose paychecks depended on his profitable decision making could be out of work. Now like I said, someone else might hire back those same workers (e.g. if he sold the firm), however there is no guarantee the business will be as profitable without their greatest profit engine (Schiff himself). Like I further argued, if there were someone equally capable of running the firm as profitably, they would likely already be a competitor.


As for the "buying labor low" argument, which sector is doing that? Right now what they're doing is shedding lots of employees, not paying out raises, cutting health benefits, and hoping that if/when they need more labor, the extended period of unemployment will provide them with a pool of desperate talent willing to work for far less than they would have pre-2007.

Right, because the government won't let the labor market correct. They keep propping everybody up with prolonged unemployment (I've known somewhat skilled people that wouldn't take jobs because unemployment pays better), and direct government employment. It is happening within some sectors, particularly highly skilled labor. Perhaps you've heard of the skills gap in the current employment picture? For example, the university I'm at is shedding lecturers, and poaching high-valued researchers from struggling institutions. There have been plenty of proposals to bridge this skills gap in more industrial sectors as well, e.g. turning unemployment benefits into vocational training. But instead you took a left turn towards "the mean corporations won't do things that are against their interests."


It's true that once upon a time, back when we had a lot of unionization, a lot of companies hoarded talent in exactly the manner you describe, so they could potentially enter into the expansion with a competitive advantage. But that's the old way of thinking, back when labor was broadly considered a valuable company resource, and not simply a fungible commodity to be purchased or discarded as needed. Offshore contractors, anyone?

Now you're a protectionist? Have you heard of "cost centers" and "profit centers?" Profit centers (valued labor) don't get outsourced. Cost centers (commoditized, fungible, unskilled, expensive labor) do. With regard to unions, it has often been their own inflexibility with their contracts (not that executives aren't equally guilty with bonuses) that has resulted in layoffs as opposed to shared pain (evenly spread hour reductions).


Lastly about the "leave the money where the market put it" -- that's a good one! You seamlessly pivoted from "economics as a theory for understanding the world" to "economics as a system of moral justice". Nicely done, you're pretty good at talking like a conservative!

Thanks. I think it's important to be able to see all sides rather than just cheerlead. Also, "economics" is theory, "the market" is the most efficient system for allocating resources with respect to individual preferences known to man. We can talk about our favorite flawed microeconomic assumptions if you want, but it's a tough case that "because I said so" is going to be more efficient than voluntary exchange.


Still it doesn't address my basic economic argument at all -- that our high unemployment is fundamentally a function of a lack of demand. Lots of people don't have money to spend, even on things they desperately need. The handfuls of people who do have money don't see any way to employ that money in a profitable way, so they're just sitting on it. There's a few ways to try to solve that problem, but cutting (or maintaining existing) taxes on the top income earners won't help.

(I get nauseous arguing against the Keynesian point so I won't directly). What I'll say is that it isn't clear drastically raising taxes on the rich will help either. What might help is a more efficient allocation of the government revenue we already have (like the vocational training instead of unemployment I outlined above). The other thing that I, and I think many others would like to see is an increase in the standard of living of individual business proprietors. They've been doing worse than "traditional labor" over the past few decades in case you haven't noticed.


A simple, but radical solution would be for the Fed to simply buy up everyone's mortgages, and then release the leins on everyone's deeds. In other words, just have Uncle Sam pay off everyone's mortgage with freshly-printed money. I suspect consumer spending would return if we did that!

I do too! I bet everyone would go leverage themselves to the gills buying houses knowing full well that when they can't cover the debt the government will bail them out! Sure, stopgap coverage, renegotiation, all that would be great (much better than bailing out the banks directly IMO), but a full fledged free money party only exacerbates the delusion. It's a recipe for currency debasement. People need to be allowed to demonstrate and feel the consequences of their lack of creditworthiness. Also, those that were creditworthy should be appropriately rewarded. It's sort of like the OWS girl that wants rich people to pay back her 100gs in student loans, but all those people that saved for college, worked for scholarships, held a job through school, well they're probably just fine the way they are.


As for my closing quip, I'm quite serious -- Schiff doesn't deserve any respect or deference. It's not classy to be deferential to the expertise of people who don't actually have any; it's foolish.

You don't find common ground, build coalitions, or change minds with ridicule.

Your video, Koch Brothers lackey Peter Schiff gets schooled by OWS, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@bmacs27 you're pretty good at aping the right's rhetorical style -- essentially all of your responses didn't address the point I made, and pivoted to some traditional right-wing hobbyhorse.

So the response to "I doubt he's really paying 50% in taxes" is not to recount even a hypothetical example of how someone could wind up paying a sum total of 50% in taxes, but instead to just argue that the dubious statement might feel true because there are many various taxes someone might be paying?

Meh.

The response to my argument about the impact of marginal tax increases on employment is to make some argument about Schiff's personal labor/leisure preferences? That has nothing to do with it at all. If Schiff is the entrepreneurial capitalist he claims to be (and not just the F-list media personality he seems to be), then he doesn't really do any direct labor, he just makes choices about allocations of capital -- he makes investment decisions, and business deals where all the real work is done by other people.

He's making the case that if he has to pay a few more percentage points in taxes, he's going to start walking away from making investment deals that would have made his company money and employed people. Hell, he goes so far as to say that he would dissolve his ostensibly profitable business and fire all his employees, rather than sell it to someone else who still likes making money, even if they have to pay taxes.

As for the "buying labor low" argument, which sector is doing that? Right now what they're doing is shedding lots of employees, not paying out raises, cutting health benefits, and hoping that if/when they need more labor, the extended period of unemployment will provide them with a pool of desperate talent willing to work for far less than they would have pre-2007.

It's true that once upon a time, back when we had a lot of unionization, a lot of companies hoarded talent in exactly the manner you describe, so they could potentially enter into the expansion with a competitive advantage. But that's the old way of thinking, back when labor was broadly considered a valuable company resource, and not simply a fungible commodity to be purchased or discarded as needed. Offshore contractors, anyone?

Lastly about the "leave the money where the market put it" -- that's a good one! You seamlessly pivoted from "economics as a theory for understanding the world" to "economics as a system of moral justice". Nicely done, you're pretty good at talking like a conservative!

Still it doesn't address my basic economic argument at all -- that our high unemployment is fundamentally a function of a lack of demand. Lots of people don't have money to spend, even on things they desperately need. The handfuls of people who do have money don't see any way to employ that money in a profitable way, so they're just sitting on it. There's a few ways to try to solve that problem, but cutting (or maintaining existing) taxes on the top income earners won't help.

A simple, but radical solution would be for the Fed to simply buy up everyone's mortgages, and then release the leins on everyone's deeds. In other words, just have Uncle Sam pay off everyone's mortgage with freshly-printed money. I suspect consumer spending would return if we did that!

As for my closing quip, I'm quite serious -- Schiff doesn't deserve any respect or deference. It's not classy to be deferential to the expertise of people who don't actually have any; it's foolish.

@NetRunner @dystopianfuturetoday

I'm looking for debate too, but I'm not going to find it if I argue the progressive angle. I'll be Lucifer's lawyer on this one.


A few things. First, I'm with those of you who doubt the truth of Schiff's statement that he's paying 50% of his income in taxes. I demand to see his tax return!

I'm potentially sympathetic to Schiff here. As we all know income taxes, and even capital gains taxes aren't the only taxes that exist. Schiff is a business owner. I suspect his issue is with the "double taxing" of profits. His business makes a profit which is then taxed. That taxation thus reduces the value of his business. Further, the remaining profits are taxed again (in the form of capital gains) when he decides to liquidate his stake in the company. So if you basically make your money by creating value in businesses in exchange for an ownership stake, that value is taxed twice before you even see it. Now of course this comes from someone that frequently makes disingenuous claims like the majority of Americans "don't pay taxes," considering the substantial share of their income they pay in consumption taxes; but his point stands on its own. I wish we had a more streamlined tax system that did away with loopholes as well as double taxation of value creation (like a VAT).


Secondly, even if it were 50%, and it went up to 65%, in what universe is it ever in Schiff's interest to stop making money? In fact, wouldn't it be an incentive for him to work harder? If he's used to a lifestyle of consumption of $1 million a year, and suddenly he's only able to consume $800k/yr, wouldn't that mean he'd redouble his efforts and try to make more money if he couldn't accept such austerity? He certainly wouldn't dismantle his businesses and cut off the source of his income.

You clearly don't value your time. Schiff's input/brand is probably the core asset of his ventures (in fact that's something you always have to remember about the guy, he's selling himself). That means he probably leads a fairly stressful life, and might choose to exchange some of his labor for the leisure time he could clearly afford in either case. That means generating less business, and thus requiring fewer "cost centers" (like staff). One argument might be that if he does dismantle his business, someone else will just fill the void in the marketplace, and hire (possibly that same) staff. However, if it was the case that there was someone willing to do what Schiff does for substantially less than Schiff, it's likely they'd already be competing with him under the favorable tax rates.


Thirdly, on jobs, like dft said, employers hire exactly as many people as they need to produce the amount of goods (or services) they're able to sell, and not a single person more. They're not going to hire more people to produce more goods if they can't sell all of what they're currently producing, that would just be pure loss to them.

This isn't always true. Businesses often use recessions to "buy labor low" to prepare a competitive advantage for the next cycle. Propping up the labor market arguably never lets the labor market reach a valuation in which this market based counter-cyclic mechanism can take place. It's further arguable that if you allowed that mechanism to take place, the resulting employment allocation may be more efficient/sustainable than, e.g. taking a census. I'm a bleeding heart, so you don't have to tell me about breadlines and old people in the streets, but part of me feels as though the youth has become soft. They don't want to learn. They don't create with what they have. They play video games and argue on Videosift.


Putting more money into the hands of the suppliers isn't going to boost employment for exactly that reason. Employers will only hire new people if they need to produce more goods, and they're only going to produce more goods if their sales increase. You really need to put more money into the hands of people who want to consume, not those who want to produce. You need to find a large group of people who want to buy more things, but can't because they don't have the money. In other words, you need to put money into the hands of poor people, not rich factory owners.

See Schiff would say DON'T give money to the employers. Stop giving money to ANYBODY. Leave the money right where the market put it. Doing anything else just allows some asshole to hoodwink the whole damn country rather than just their clients. Personally I feel there needs to be some initial breaking up of the oligarchy if you really want to pursue that line of reasoning (i.e. sorry Schiff, we're taking your gold with our pitchforks), but that's just me.


Schiff doesn't seem to know all this stuff, which is why everyone should laugh in his face when he says he knows anything about economics.

Come on, we're classier than that.

In reply to this comment by marbles:
>> ^enoch:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/marbles" title="member since May 7th, 2011" class="profilelink">marbles.
dude.
are you even aware of how contradictory your arguments have been of late?


Contradictory like: "[strawmen arguments] is all i have seen you post ... you make some salient points"?

But evidently I'm the one that's oblivious. So please do tell.

>> ^enoch:
and the irony of calling people out for using strawmen arguments when that is all i have seen you post?


Wrong thread pal. But again, please do tell.
>> ^enoch:

i write this with all sincerity and humility because i feel your heart is in the right place,but man..your arguments are conflations smashed with contradictions.
you make some salient points and then confuse your entire premise with smashing them with red herrings and gobldegook rhetoric.
stay on point brother,
and disagreeing with DFT is fine but questioning his intellect or sanity is a step i would recommend against.
he does not suffer fools lightly and your arguments have left you wide open for a smack down.
just my friendly two cents.


I don't know what a "conflation smashed with contradictions" is, but I would suspect your post is a lot closer than anything I've posted here.

Seriously I appreciate the concern and the Bible reference about suffering fools, but I hope that's not a swipe my intellect or sanity. For that would subvert your whole neutral status, now wouldn't it?

Go back to mindless cheerleading and let DFT fight his own battles. Or rather, babble ad hominem static in-between championing Wall Street agendas.


@marbles
did you just bullet response my comment?
/chuckles
awesome.
ok...whatever man.
and by what means did you derive my intentions?
crystal ball? voodoo?
you got me wrong scooter.
you aint got the first clue who i am.
my comment and intentions were sincere.YOU projected your own bullshit which had nothing to do with me.
any inclination i may have had to elucidate further on some of my points has evaporated due to your own feeble understandings of who i am.
so you go right ahead and believe whatever bullshit you want to believe concerning me based on nothing but your own limited perceptions.
because frankly...i dont give a shit.

>> ^enoch:

@marbles.
dude.
are you even aware of how contradictory your arguments have been of late?


Contradictory like: "[strawmen arguments] is all i have seen you post ... you make some salient points"?

But evidently I'm the one that's oblivious. So please do tell.

>> ^enoch:
and the irony of calling people out for using strawmen arguments when that is all i have seen you post?


Wrong thread pal. But again, please do tell.
>> ^enoch:

i write this with all sincerity and humility because i feel your heart is in the right place,but man..your arguments are conflations smashed with contradictions.
you make some salient points and then confuse your entire premise with smashing them with red herrings and gobldegook rhetoric.
stay on point brother,
and disagreeing with DFT is fine but questioning his intellect or sanity is a step i would recommend against.
he does not suffer fools lightly and your arguments have left you wide open for a smack down.
just my friendly two cents.


I don't know what a "conflation smashed with contradictions" is, but I would suspect your post is a lot closer than anything I've posted here.

Seriously I appreciate the concern and the Bible reference about suffering fools, but I hope that's not a swipe my intellect or sanity. For that would subvert your whole neutral status, now wouldn't it?

Go back to mindless cheerleading and let DFT fight his own battles. Or rather, babble ad hominem static in-between championing Wall Street agendas.

Dude, Schiff is the one spewing the most ridiculous things from a historical perspective I've ever heard, not West. Are you saying right now that Schiff is right that child labor was ended by the free market, not gov't regulation?! That's just patently absurd!

He's saying that a guarantee of deposits by the FDIC fueled speculation. Okay, so when and why was it instituted? In *1933*, it was instituted *after* massive stock speculation among other causes triggered the Stock Market Crash of 1929, which triggered the Great Depression. As banks had invested in stocks, etc themselves (outlawed by Glass-Steagall), made bad loans, including to allow people to buy stocks on credit, etc. etc. people made runs on the banks to get their deposits out before the banks went belly up, regardless of if individual banks themselves participated in the speculation because no one knew which banks were actually in trouble. Some Depression era people put their money "under their mattresses" and a few kept that attitude up until their deaths because of those runs on the banks. The FDIC was instituted to get people to put money back into banks to rebuild on hand deposits, so banks would be able to lend again and actually stay in business. We had the FDIC for almost 80 years now, and the banking system has remarkably MORE stable than it was before the FDIC without any doubt, and this clown says it fuels speculation?! You know what you didn't see in the last recession when the market tanked? MASSIVE RUNS ON MOST BANKS! That's precisely why we have it! And it's logically ridiculous on the surface of it. Just think about it. The FDIC guarantees that I get MY money back if I deposit it to a bank that is FDIC insured, and the bank goes belly up. What happens to the bank if it makes bad decisions? It goes belly up. So why would the bank speculate in that situation due specifically to the FDIC?! THEY STILL GO BELLY UP! You can say the bank bailouts had something to do with it because now the Goldman Sachs of the world know that gov't won't let too big to fails fail. I'm sympathetic to that argument, but the FDIC's insurance on deposits?! RIDICULOUS!

Peter Schiff is not correct here. It's some of the most patently ridiculous things I've heard yet about the economy. If you've read my posts, I'm as pragmatic as one could possibly be, and I'm without a doubt a moderate. I don't give a crap whether specific gov't regulations work or not, but I don't attempt to blind myself with ideology, but this clown is going to great lengths to fundamentally rewrite historical record that's basic freaking fact about the US prior, during, and after the Great Depression that even a basic historical understanding would allow anyone to realize he's an idiot, or is at best making a disingenuous argument to trumpet free market economics for the sake of itself.

>> ^bobknight33:

Peter Schiff is correct. Cornell West foolishly wrong. He teaches African studies which teaches jack about how economies work.

A few things. First, I'm with those of you who doubt the truth of Schiff's statement that he's paying 50% of his income in taxes. I demand to see his tax return!

Secondly, even if it were 50%, and it went up to 65%, in what universe is it ever in Schiff's interest to stop making money? In fact, wouldn't it be an incentive for him to work harder? If he's used to a lifestyle of consumption of $1 million a year, and suddenly he's only able to consume $800k/yr, wouldn't that mean he'd redouble his efforts and try to make more money if he couldn't accept such austerity? He certainly wouldn't dismantle his businesses and cut off the source of his income.

Thirdly, on jobs, like dft said, employers hire exactly as many people as they need to produce the amount of goods (or services) they're able to sell, and not a single person more. They're not going to hire more people to produce more goods if they can't sell all of what they're currently producing, that would just be pure loss to them.

Putting more money into the hands of the suppliers isn't going to boost employment for exactly that reason. Employers will only hire new people if they need to produce more goods, and they're only going to produce more goods if their sales increase. You really need to put more money into the hands of people who want to consume, not those who want to produce. You need to find a large group of people who want to buy more things, but can't because they don't have the money. In other words, you need to put money into the hands of poor people, not rich factory owners.

Schiff doesn't seem to know all this stuff, which is why everyone should laugh in his face when he says he knows anything about economics.

Peter Schiff is correct. Cornell West foolishly wrong. He teaches African studies which teaches jack about how economies work.