Yeah, feel free to slap that video in the face of anyone who ever says Peter Schiff is awesome and/or infallible.

The Krugman predictions of stagnation and disinflation were right, crackpot predictions of Weimar/Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation were dead wrong.

I'm a bit curious how Schiff spins his utter fail.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Peter Schiff *Failboat.com.org

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Definitely one to mark down:

Schiff says we'll have a crash of our economy driven by hyperinflation by the end of the year, or maybe in 2010.

Krugman (who unlike Schiff is a Nobel prize winning economist) also predicted the problem we're having now, and says if we don't do something even bigger than an $800bn stimulus, we're in for a deflationary problem, just like the Great Depression.

Clearly, someone will be proven right, even if disaster ensues.

Flim-flam artists like Schiff should know better, if the problem now is because Greenspan made the interest rate too low in 2002 then the real problem is that our current 0% interest rate will cause a new asset bubble that will collapse, so he should allow for a much longer period of time for it to gestate, like say Obama's second term, 2014 or so.

But that wouldn't get him on the TeeVee machine to throw bricks at Democrats as often.

>> ^Crosswords:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Crosswords:
Yes I did paraphrase and generalize what Mr. Schiff said ...
= I made a douchey argument.

Paraphrasing is a perfectly acceptable method for restating the expressed idea presented, specially in a situation such as the interview in the video where there are many abrupt interruptions and changes of subject.
Further more, you suggested arguments I attributed in my original post weren't presented by Mr. Schiff in the video, and I made sure to give you time marks where the argument occurred in the video and direct quotations of the material I was paraphrasing. I went on to explain where and why I generalized, specifically on the 2nd point, in an attempt to clarify why I was making my original argument.
If you have another view of what was said please enlighten me. Or maybe you're just mad I used a pejorative to describe Mr. Schiff's argument. Well guilty as charged, but at least I gave a lengthy explanation of why I thought it was bad argument.


You didn't paraphrase Schiff. You revised what he said into easily argued strawman, or what you call "common arguments made by proponents of unregulated markets and low/no taxation on the rich".

You accused him of making "douchey arguments" by misrepresenting what he said. So who is the real douche here?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Crosswords:
Yes I did paraphrase and generalize what Mr. Schiff said ...
= I made a douchey argument.


Paraphrasing is a perfectly acceptable method for restating the expressed idea presented, specially in a situation such as the interview in the video where there are many abrupt interruptions and changes of subject.

Further more, you suggested arguments I attributed in my original post weren't presented by Mr. Schiff in the video, and I made sure to give you time marks where the argument occurred in the video and direct quotations of the material I was paraphrasing. I went on to explain where and why I generalized, specifically on the 2nd point, in an attempt to clarify why I was making my original argument.

If you have another view of what was said please enlighten me. Or maybe you're just mad I used a pejorative to describe Mr. Schiff's argument. Well guilty as charged, but at least I gave a lengthy explanation of why I thought it was bad argument.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You didn't respond to main thrust of my comment. I'll take that to mean you have no coherent response. Instead you've given me a hodgepodge of political slogans.
(I know I shouldn't lavish you with undeserved attention, but I've got a debate jones to satisfy.)
"Tax the rich" All those record profits are doing the economy no good stagnating in corporate coffers. Take that money and pump it into the economy. Use it to create jobs, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, to provide health care. Tax revenue can create jobs when markets fail. It worked in the last great depression. It will work in this depression too.
"Socialism" Nice of you to put words in my mouth. I don't want extreme socialism anymore than I want extreme capitalism. A balanced system that takes advantage of the best of both systems is the wisest.
"Founding fathers" I find it funny that when conservatives come up short in the argument department, that they put words in the mouths of the founding fathers. If your argument cannot stand on it's own then don't make it. Putting words into the mouths of dead people is no more acceptable than putting them into the mouths of the living.
"Tyranny of the majority/Cover for oligarchs" These two stock arguments you've chosen to regurgitate contradict one another. Clearly oligarchs and the people can't both be in charge. You've got to pick one or the other. These types of contradictions reinforce my belief that you are unable to think things through for yourself.


Keep the personal attacks coming, it shows how pathetic your position really is. Debate jones, is that what this is? More like your satisfying your flaming jones, which makes me really question your psychological health.

Fraud and corruption caused the last depression, this depression, and future depressions if left to you. Instead of trying to fight and prevent the fraud, you try to present the problem as a partisan one. And offer solutions sponsored by Wall Street politicians.

>> ^Crosswords:
Yes I did paraphrase and generalize what Mr. Schiff said ...
= I made a douchey argument.

You didn't respond to main thrust of my comment. I'll take that to mean you have no coherent response. Instead you've given me a hodgepodge of political slogans.

(I know I shouldn't lavish you with undeserved attention, but I've got a debate jones to satisfy.)

"Tax the rich" All those record profits are doing the economy no good stagnating in corporate coffers. Take that money and pump it into the economy. Use it to create jobs, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, to provide health care. Tax revenue can create jobs when markets fail. It worked in the last great depression. It will work in this depression too.

"Socialism" Nice of you to put words in my mouth. I don't want extreme socialism anymore than I want extreme capitalism. A balanced system that takes advantage of the best of both systems is the wisest.

"Founding fathers" I find it funny that when conservatives come up short in the argument department, that they put words in the mouths of the founding fathers. If your argument cannot stand on it's own then don't make it. Putting words into the mouths of dead people is no more acceptable than putting them into the mouths of the living.

"Tyranny of the majority/Cover for oligarchs" These two stock arguments you've chosen to regurgitate contradict one another. Clearly oligarchs and the people can't both be in charge. You've got to pick one or the other. These types of contradictions reinforce my belief that you are unable to think things through for yourself.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I think my comment was pretty clear. I know further clarification is probably a waste of breath, but so be it. The 'job creator-trickle down' spiel goes like this: If you lower taxes for wealthy people, they make lots of money which they then pump back into the economy in the form of jobs (among other benefits to society).
Well, we've now lived under this assumption for 3 decades now, and while it is clear that cutting taxes does give the wealthy more money, it has failed to produce the promised jobs. On the contrary, it seems to actually have the effect of killing good jobs, either by automating them or sending them overseas to third world slaves. This is probably because the extra money is used to lobby the government, rather that create new jobs.
Another big problem with the 'job creator' argument is that from a business standpoint, you generally only hire as many employees as you need to maximize profits, regardless of how much money you have stagnating in their bank accounts. Hiring more or less help than you need makes little sense.
This is how 'we got here'. We've let business take control of our democracy. With this power, big business has taken us to war, filled it's coffers with public money, given itself all manner of no-bid contracts, subsidies, bail outs and trade deals, has eroded our civil rights, corrupted our courts, monopolized our media, among other horrors. They've deregulated and privatized the financial sector as to allow themselves the freedom to pollute, exploit and swindle.
Capiche?

>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The problem with the 'job creators' stratagem is that, with record high wealth/corporate earnings, record low taxes and record high unemployment, it has no obvious basis in reality. It is also delightful to see these protesters dodge his obvious trap, forcing him to awkwardly offer up the payoff without an organic set up. His karma ran over his dogma.

You seem to be oblivious to how we got here. Your argument/position has no obvious basis in reality. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It doesn't break up the big banks, stop corporatism, or end the magic money tree called the federal reserve.
It's a delight to frame these serious problems into false partisan arguments?
Nice joke though. But the 90s called and want to know wtf you're talking about.


So let's raise taxes on the rich! That'll teach 'em! And our problems will be fixed.
The most most glaring error in your analysis is that "democracy" got us here.
Socialism is not a remedy. Socialism always has and always will always be a mechanism to consolidate the wealth of the people before looting it.
Our founders didn't set up a "democracy". They recognized the fundamental flaw to "group think". The minority is always at the tyranny of the majority. Protecting the rights of the minority is the only way to preserve the rule of law, and the smallest minority is the individual.
And just like socialism is used to deceive the people, so is democracy. It's political cover for oligarchs. It's not about taking "control of our democracy", for that's the entire point. Democracy is either a false perception or tyranny of the majority. The people lose either way.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Keep sucking that corporate cock. Keep sucking with all your heart and all your mind. Close your eyes and keep sucking it until you are filled up with the warm and sticky spurt of freedom. You are not a whore. You are not a dupe. You are a self made rugged individualist. Breathe in. You are not blindly following a fantastical doctrine. You have come to these conclusions on your own. Breathe out. You are not a sucker. You are a hero. Breathe in. You are not a dupe. You are a champion. Breathe out. You are the living embodiment of liberty. Breathe in. One day you will be rewarded for your loyalty. Breathe out. One day you will be rewarded. Breathe in. One day you will be rewarded. Breath in. One day you will be rewarded with spurt. Breathe out. You are not a dupe. You are a champion. Breathe in. You are not a dupe. You are an champion. Breathe out. You are ayn champion. Breathe in. Champion. Breathe... and suck... and breathe... and suck... and suck... and breathe... and suck... and... spurt.
I'm spent.
>> ^marbles:
"Koch Brothers lackey Peter Schiff gets schooled by OWS"
I think the title proves who the real fool and idiot is.
The black guy makes a rape analogy between corporations and their victims, but then seems to suffer from Stockholm syndrome when questioning Schiff about EPA, FDA, and Dept of Education.



LOL nice. That's the best you got?

You should focus more on making rational arguments instead of trying to attack those you disagree with.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^marbles:


Well, I listened to the clip again and somehow I couldn't find these Schiff arguments. The only ones making "douchey arguments" are those framing partisan strawman instead of recognizing there's truth to both sides.


Yes I did paraphrase and generalize what Mr. Schiff said as they are common arguments made by proponents of unregulated markets and low/no taxation on the rich.

But they were arguments made by Mr. Schiff; the first one starts around 00:55 mark:

The protester asks "...why are you manufacturing your iPhone in China, and you don't have any of your manufacturing here in the united states?"

Mr.Schiff responds "...and I'll tell you why, because we made it, *interrupted* "do you think that's fair to the American people?" *continues*, "...the American people don't own those jobs, Steve Jobs has a right to manufacture where he wants, we have made it too expensive to manufacture here, the government, remember that the reason employers want to lower wages is because the customers want low prices, everybody in this park wants low prices. You can't have low prices...(cut)"

Argument two starts at 02:10 after he gets called a fool by the protester:

"...so I just stumbled into all my wealth, I run all these businesses..."

His response was more aimed at being called a fool and suggesting a foolish person can't be successful like he is, that they can't just stumble into success. My point is that success if oft claimed to be 100% or near 100% the efforts of the successful, wherein reality in most cases there are many contributing factors beyond the successful person's control, that are conveniently forgotten. So yes he could stumble into success with minimal effort on his part, just as he could fail despite lots of effort.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I think my comment was pretty clear. I know further clarification is probably a waste of breath, but so be it. The 'job creator-trickle down' spiel goes like this: If you lower taxes for wealthy people, they make lots of money which they then pump back into the economy in the form of jobs (among other benefits to society).
Well, we've now lived under this assumption for 3 decades now, and while it is clear that cutting taxes does give the wealthy more money, it has failed to produce the promised jobs. On the contrary, it seems to actually have the effect of killing good jobs, either by automating them or sending them overseas to third world slaves. This is probably because the extra money is used to lobby the government, rather that create new jobs.
Another big problem with the 'job creator' argument is that from a business standpoint, you generally only hire as many employees as you need to maximize profits, regardless of how much money you have stagnating in their bank accounts. Hiring more or less help than you need makes little sense.
This is how 'we got here'. We've let business take control of our democracy. With this power, big business has taken us to war, filled it's coffers with public money, given itself all manner of no-bid contracts, subsidies, bail outs and trade deals, has eroded our civil rights, corrupted our courts, monopolized our media, among other horrors. They've deregulated and privatized the financial sector as to allow themselves the freedom to pollute, exploit and swindle.
Capiche?

>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The problem with the 'job creators' stratagem is that, with record high wealth/corporate earnings, record low taxes and record high unemployment, it has no obvious basis in reality. It is also delightful to see these protesters dodge his obvious trap, forcing him to awkwardly offer up the payoff without an organic set up. His karma ran over his dogma.

You seem to be oblivious to how we got here. Your argument/position has no obvious basis in reality. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It doesn't break up the big banks, stop corporatism, or end the magic money tree called the federal reserve.
It's a delight to frame these serious problems into false partisan arguments?
Nice joke though. But the 90s called and want to know wtf you're talking about.



So let's raise taxes on the rich! That'll teach 'em! And our problems will be fixed.

The most most glaring error in your analysis is that "democracy" got us here.

Socialism is not a remedy. Socialism always has and always will always be a mechanism to consolidate the wealth of the people before looting it.

Our founders didn't set up a "democracy". They recognized the fundamental flaw to "group think". The minority is always at the tyranny of the majority. Protecting the rights of the minority is the only way to preserve the rule of law, and the smallest minority is the individual.

And just like socialism is used to deceive the people, so is democracy. It's political cover for oligarchs. It's not about taking "control of our democracy", for that's the entire point. Democracy is either a false perception or tyranny of the majority. The people lose either way.

Keep sucking that corporate cock. Keep sucking with all your heart and all your mind. Close your eyes and keep sucking it until you are filled up with the warm and sticky spurt of freedom. You are not a whore. You are not a dupe. You are a self made rugged individualist. Breathe in. You are not blindly following a fantastical doctrine. You have come to these conclusions on your own. Breathe out. You are not a sucker. You are a hero. Breathe in. You are not a dupe. You are a champion. Breathe out. You are the living embodiment of liberty. Breathe in. One day you will be rewarded for your loyalty. Breathe out. One day you will be rewarded. Breathe in. One day you will be rewarded. Breath in. One day you will be rewarded with spurt. Breathe out. You are not a dupe. You are a champion. Breathe in. You are not a dupe. You are an champion. Breathe out. You are ayn champion. Breathe in. Champion. Breathe... and suck... and breathe... and suck... and suck... and breathe... and suck... and... spurt.

I'm spent.

>> ^marbles:

"Koch Brothers lackey Peter Schiff gets schooled by OWS"
I think the title proves who the real fool and idiot is.
The black guy makes a rape analogy between corporations and their victims, but then seems to suffer from Stockholm syndrome when questioning Schiff about EPA, FDA, and Dept of Education.

I think my comment was pretty clear. I know further clarification is probably a waste of breath, but so be it. The 'job creator-trickle down' spiel goes like this: If you lower taxes for wealthy people, they make lots of money which they then pump back into the economy in the form of jobs (among other benefits to society).

Well, we've now lived under this doctrine for 3 decades now, and while it is clear that cutting taxes does (obviously) give the wealthy more money, it has failed to produce the promised jobs. On the contrary, it seems to actually have the effect of killing good jobs, either by automating them or sending them overseas to third world slaves. This is probably because the extra money is used to lobby the government, rather that create new jobs.

Another big problem with the 'job creator' argument is that from a business standpoint, you generally only hire as many employees as you need to maximize profits, regardless of how much money you have stagnating in the bank. Hiring more or less help than you need makes little sense.

This is how 'we got here'. We've let business take control of our democracy. With this power, big business has taken us to war, filled it's coffers with public money, given itself all manner of no-bid contracts, subsidies, bail outs and trade deals, has eroded our civil rights, corrupted our courts, monopolized our media, among other horrors. They've deregulated and privatized the financial sector as to allow themselves the freedom to pollute, exploit and swindle.

Capiche?



>> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The problem with the 'job creators' stratagem is that, with record high wealth/corporate earnings, record low taxes and record high unemployment, it has no obvious basis in reality. It is also delightful to see these protesters dodge his obvious trap, forcing him to awkwardly offer up the payoff without an organic set up. His karma ran over his dogma.

You seem to be oblivious to how we got here. Your argument/position has no obvious basis in reality. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It doesn't break up the big banks, stop corporatism, or end the magic money tree called the federal reserve.
It's a delight to frame these serious problems into false partisan arguments?
Nice joke though. But the 90s called and want to know wtf you're talking about.

>> ^Crosswords:

I'd like to respond to two of the more douchey arguments made by Mr. Schiff.
1. AMERICAN WORKERS ARE DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND LOWER PRICES THAN CORPORATIONS CAN PROFIT FROM.
This would be more believable if a. Corporate profits weren't at record highs, b. the disparity between worker and executive pay is huge and has been more or less steadily increasing and c. the disparity between the top 20% and everyone else has also been increasing. So essentially the rich are demanding more for less and they're getting it.
2. I WORKED HARD TO EARN EVERYTHING I GOT, SO I DESERVE TO KEEP IT ALL AND DO WHATEVER I WANT.
This is a ridiculous argument designed to make the person who has the most look like a victim. It ignores the tremendous advantages he enjoys in a society that strives to give workers a relatively comfortable wage and keep opportunities for economic advancement open. Had he been born in one of his oh so precious 'competitive' wage countries in all likelihood he'd be living in poverty sewing shoes for a $1 a day till the day he died of poor health at the age of 45. Further more it also ignores his socioeconomic upbringing and make the assumption he's a self-made man who picked himself up from his own boot-straps out of the mud of poverty. In Mr. Schiff's case his father was a well connected political activist, investor, and current tax dodging jail bird. Its probably safe to say Peter Schiff didn't start with nothing, but in fact had a lot more avenues to success open to him than the majority of Americans do. There's also the element of chance, its nice to think that everything you succeed at is purely a result of your own tenacity and personal genius, but I'd argue there is also a good deal of chance involved; being in the right place at the right time and making the right decision. No, I'm not suggesting people have no control over what they do in life, I'm arguing the assertion that they have complete control is false.
I don't think the protester did an awful job, and the fact he gave someone who's job it is to argue on on TV about economic matters a run for his money is a statement to the weakness of Mr. Schiff's position.


Well, I listened to the clip again and somehow I couldn't find these Schiff arguments. The only ones making "douchey arguments" are those framing partisan strawman instead of recognizing there's truth to both sides.

@Crosswords
i am beginning to feel the stirrings of a man-crush on you.

look.
when it comes to money and economics schiff has made some great points and in 2004 was almost prophetic but when it comes to politics schiff appears to be a fish out of water and came to OWS with a self-righteous pre-conception and was rightly shown the error in his ways.

the argument about disbanding the EPA,the FDA or the DOE is a conflation.
we can argue the effeciency vs results but that is an entirely separate argument and has little to do with their actually designed roles and the necessity of those departments.

i do not understand those who keep touting the virtue of an un-regulated and "free" market.
unless you feel that indentured servitude,child labor and unsafe products that may harm or kill are perfectly acceptable.
it not only ignores history but conveniently ignores that uneven disparity that would be inevitable.
you think there is inequality now?
let a true free market become the mantra of pure capitalism and see what happens.
dont have resources and were not born in to an affluent family?
well go fuck yourself and make me a sandwich.

the game is rigged.
the system is fixed.
a CEO defrauds billions and walks away with 160 million in bonuses.
a man steals a pack of underwear and spends 30 days in jail,gets charged for the food and board and owes 500 hours of community service and a years probation at a 100 bucks a month.

all men are created equal under the eyes of the law?
i call bullshit.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The problem with the 'job creators' stratagem is that, with record high wealth/corporate earnings, record low taxes and record high unemployment, it has no obvious basis in reality. It is also delightful to see these protesters dodge his obvious trap, forcing him to awkwardly offer up the payoff without an organic set up. His karma ran over his dogma.


You seem to be oblivious to how we got here. Your argument/position has no obvious basis in reality. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It doesn't break up the big banks, stop corporatism, or end the magic money tree called the federal reserve.

It's a delight to frame these serious problems into false partisan arguments?

Nice joke though. But the 90s called and want to know wtf you're talking about.