*dead

but easily replaced here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-9-2009/peter-schiff

Gee, a guy from IMF saying the system is fine? Figure that one out.

Inevitable total worldwide economic collapse is SUCH OLD NEWS. Just ask Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente, the list goes on... Get an acre and plant a big garden or riot and die.

Hey brother. Very cool. You can find the schedule here: http://yeardleymovie.com/screenings/

Times may not be accurate. I'm at the whim of the theater chain when it comes to scheduling. And some of them are not doing the Sunday showing.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
THANKS!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
meeeeeh.
lotta scary music and red herrings BUT it also is chock full of correct information and points to very real possibilities.
money junkies and power junkies all snorting coke off of a strippers fake titties.
jim rogers and peter schiff called this all in 04.
a lot of clips of them in this film..worth a watch and then decide for yourself.
*promote

anytime man.
hey..if you get a chance think you could get me your distribution schedule for your movie?
i was not kidding when i said i would support ya.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
THANKS!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
meeeeeh.
lotta scary music and red herrings BUT it also is chock full of correct information and points to very real possibilities.
money junkies and power junkies all snorting coke off of a strippers fake titties.
jim rogers and peter schiff called this all in 04.
a lot of clips of them in this film..worth a watch and then decide for yourself.
*promote

anytime man.
hey..if you get a chance think you could get me your distribution schedule for your movie?
i was not kidding when i said i would support ya.

THANKS!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
meeeeeh.
lotta scary music and red herrings BUT it also is chock full of correct information and points to very real possibilities.
money junkies and power junkies all snorting coke off of a strippers fake titties.
jim rogers and peter schiff called this all in 04.
a lot of clips of them in this film..worth a watch and then decide for yourself.
*promote

meeeeeh.
lotta scary music and red herrings BUT it also is chock full of correct information and points to very real possibilities.
money junkies and power junkies all snorting coke off of a strippers fake titties.
jim rogers and peter schiff called this all in 04.
a lot of clips of them in this film..worth a watch and then decide for yourself.
*promote

>> ^bmacs27:
Is it me, or is it impossible to assassinate a citizen, unless that citizen also happens to be a high ranking public official of some sort?


Assassination to me has always been essentially murder of a state or public official. But it has been slagged out to mean a "hit". Basically an murdered that has some organization behind it be it the mob, or the government. So where you are right to be puzzled by its use; the use of assassination to mean a "hit" is fairly common place.

and to address griefer_queafer. As I have mentioned in a early part of this thread, more people have been executed by totalitarian governments than by terrorists. It is right to be afraid of many things, bears, lions, tigers, and even terrorists. But, the plain and simple truth is the deaths from those things pail in comparison with dictator states. The fear of the latter should be mountains greater than any of the former. There is a different between raising the alarm and being an alarmist. Were Peter Schiff, and Ron Paul alarmists when they warned of the impending house recession crash? It is one thing to be unjustifiably angry with Obama as you point out. But to do as Dr. Paul is, whom is legitimately concerned about the direction of this country, and call him out takes a bit of gumption. Would you of said the same to all the Bush haters?

Also, if you didn't get my hyperbole in my caption I am sorry. Most things are lost in translation from my head to words. However, Obama isn't about transparency...at all. All the closed door meetings that lead to the bail out of the banks and the rush job to pass legislation through before his touted "7 day for Americans to review legislation" policy flew right out the window. Make no mistake, Obama is better at dressing up the turd that is our current government. But a large pile of poo it still is.

And for something completely different. By 2022, by my limited projections; at current spending levels (which will actually go up because of medicare) the interest on the federal debt will be equal to the entire federal budget of this year. Bad stuff happens then.

Upvote for information about American Samoa. Half a downvote for the baseless, dataless generalization to the U.S. economy. Average score: Upvote, despite Peter Schiff's argument looking suspiciously similar to swiss cheese.

Sixty Minutes is pretty liberal? Riiiiight.

Same old shit.

The investor class has too little, the working class has too much.

Minimum wage saves jobs, because we all know it's better to work like a slave for a pittance rather than be unemployed altogether.

Fuck you, Peter Schiff.

Solution? Tax the shit out of Chicken of the Sea and subsidize the people of Samoa.

"From the results of the Household Income and Expenditure Survey in 1997, overall 48% of households do not have sufficient daily food expenditure to meet their estimated food requirements."

(source)

Yeah, Pete, they were living high on the hog with only 48% of the population who couldn't afford enough to eat properly.

Ben Stein is no debater, he should stick to acting and game shows. Paul has a Jew chief economic advisor (Peter Schiff) who coincidentally also made Stein look ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

Paul was also inspired by the Jewish economist Murray Rothbard. To say he hates Jewish people is retarded. I think Paul has seen enough evidence to suggest that Israel has undermined our ability to make sovereign decisions on some matters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWLBhgTQ46o

I have come to agree that each country should really only be concerned about defending itself. We do for Israel what Israel needs to do for itself. No country is another country's sacrificial lamb. It's not the obligation of an American soldier to die so that an Iraqi or Israeli doesn't. At some point we have to accept that our meddling in foreign governments is easy propaganda for radical groups. It's clearly hypocritical that we endorse democracy while propping up dictators like Hussein and Musharraf.

Beck is easy fodder and this segment seems to be implying that gold's price is a result of illegitimate fear and not actual currency debasement worldwide. Not even Beck's massive ego can affect the price of gold. Gold began going up years ago when Greenspan lowered interest rates to 1% and blew up the real estate bubble.

http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au3650nyb.html

The Fed's continued policy of inflation, the arbitrary creation of dollar units at no labor or material cost, is what is making dollars less scarce relative to gold. Yes, the real estate bubble was allowed to collapse about halfway, but gold continues to rise in anticipation of the banks eventually loaning all that bailout money they received. It can't just sit on the sidelines forever, either it's retracted and we pay the piper, or it's loaned out. The problem with loaning it out is that we may lose key buyers of our debt. A bond is a promise to pay future dollars, and if we are rapidly decreasing their scarcity relative to goods, it becomes a losing proposition to buy bonds at such a low interest rate. Some of the largest purchasers of gold are foreign central banks, which are currently VASTLY underinvested in gold. China has only 1% of its reserves in gold, the rest is paper. India recently bought 200 metric tons.

I will start believing in the gold bubble crowd when I stop seeing those infomercials getting highly indebted Americans to SELL their gold for paper. You talk to the typical person the street, and they're still oblivious to what gold represents, and those that do are not buying, but selling. This is just the beginning of a huge bull run, and it's kind of hilarious to see some people calling the top over and over again. Peter Schiff wrote a funny article in 2006 about what a gold bubble would actually look like.

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Schiff/apr252006.html

then i guess we agree but word things differently.
fair enough.
but historical context is not opinion.
while we could discuss the whole "winner writes history" which is a great discussion,what i posted had nothing to do with opinion but is factual.
we have a right to our own opinion but not to our own facts.
i agree wholeheartedly on your points on corruption in politics but i disagree that corporations should not be held accountable.
that whole "boys will be boys" mentality is naive and dangerous thinking and historically has always been detrimental to a society as a whole.
you are correct that much of what these lenders did was lawful.laws in which these institutions spent billions in either redressing or outright dismissing.understand that cost/benefit is the impetus for every corporation.it is not desire or an evil malevolence but legal.corporations are legally bound to put profit above all else.so if company A has the option to either spend 400 million to clean up its pollution or pay 3 million in fines.company A will pay the fines.the shareholder benefits while the local township suffers.it is a bizzaro system and needs to be addressed.i believe the statistics can be found at the government office of accounting.believe or disbelieve,your choice.

this is the very same impetus that had financial institutions lobby to repeal the myriad protection laws from post-depression in order to maximize profits.remember,america went from a manufacturing economy to a financial one in the 80's,this has been a long time in the making and is a perfect example of the damage that corporations can do unwittingly if allowed free reign.

i highly recommend peter schiff's book "crash proof".it details far better than i how we came to be in this situation.

^ Baiting anyone who wants to fight with a very non-controversial statement.

I find it funny that people buy into the shadow statistics website. Why are their numbers more believable than the government's?

For that matter, if TIPS gives a payout based on government-based CPI, doesn't that mean this measure becomes an effective way to gauge whether the market agrees with the officially-published CPI? If the market believes the government consistently under-reports inflation, then wouldn't it bid up the constant-value yields, and make this test show that the market expects high inflation?

It's kinda the beauty of the test -- both yields are set by market forces, but the payout for TIPS will be adjusted by the government-reported CPI, while constant-value won't be. The spread is determined entirely by market-expected worth of the TIPS vs. constant-value.

Now, this isn't a way to measure inflation, it's a way to divine what the market consensus prediction about the 10-year rate of inflation is.

The way I see it, you have four possibilities:

1. The government is lying, and the market knows it.
   
   In this case, the constant value yield gives you an upper bound for the rate of inflation -- the market expects that security to pay back the rate of inflation + market interest of >0%.
   
   
2. The government is not lying, and the market knows it.
   
   The above is true, and the test as described can also be expected to be a reasonable predictor of the 10-year inflation rate.
   
   
3. The government is not lying, but the market thinks it is.
   
   In this case, we would see a high TIPS spread, but real inflation will be less than it predicts.
   
   
4. The government is lying, and the market doesn't know it.
   
   This is the Austrian belief. It means for some reason all the people controlling all the money in the world believe the Government's fraudulent statistics, while shadowstatistics.com, Peter Schiff and Ron Paul play the role of economic Cassandras.
   
   I don't see why smart (and therefore most) money wouldn't bet on their predictions, if they are indeed accurate. They have no new theory, or special information, and certainly aren't keeping what they know to themselves. As a liberal, I don't see why the market not listening to their "correct" ideas doesn't violate the basic premise of why we should surrender our lives to the infallible, prescient markets, but I digress.
   

My judgment is that #4 would indicate not that Paul and Schiff are right, but that Karl Marx is right, and capitalism should be considered a fatally flawed system.

Mostly though, I think the evidence points to reality falling somewhere between #1 and #2. To the degree that the government is lying, the market is aware of it, and adjusting accordingly, with inflation likely to fall between the TIPS spread and the constant-value yield...and neither number is large right now.

I'm more of a free marketeer than Paul and Schiff -- I think if they really had valuable insight, more money would be moving on the basis of their theories and predictions.

>> ^robdot:
my friends. this guy is hopelessly out of touch. hes living in the 1920;s or something. if the usa was the size of texas maybe we could live the way he proposes, but we are 300 million strong. we must feed and protect 300 million people. we need desease control. emergency management. protection of our food supply.
we can not survive.literally,without the fda cdc fema etc. also without a progressive income tax the wealth would quickly be in the hands of a small percentage of the population. no matter what anyone says our tax system helps to ..spread the wealth. fair tax, flat tax. sales tax. etc. are regressive. the more you make the less you pay in taxes. thats why we dont do that. this guy is one of the reasons we are so fucked up right now. hes completely lost.


Um, your country survived for more than half it's existence without those services. You also survived without the income tax until 1913! Also, an unapportioned tax on income is actually unconstitutional.

Also, regarding the income tax spreading the wealth around, perhaps some numbers might convince you otherwise:


In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%. - Source

Ron Paul is on the side of individuals making decisions for themselves. The CDC, FDA and FEMA don't feed 300 million people, individuals work and receive money that they buy food with. The government does not contribute at all, except taking a percentage of that individuals earnings in tax and spending it on government programs.


>> ^chilaxe:
Paul's and Schiff's prediction of the end of civilization as we know it unless we all become fans of freshwater economics doesn't look very likely. They better hope for something like a meteor strike to help bring civilization down, because it's a drain on your credibility if your 100% certainty predictions don't pan out.


In comparison with the people who are actually in control of the economy, Schiff and Paul have been right 100% of the time. If anyone's credibility should be questioned, it should be Bernanke and Geithner.

Why have Schiff and Paul never been able to escape a position in the marketplace of ideas that they perceive to be so vastly underappreciated?

As long as they tie their technical points about mistakes of the federal reserve to broader, fundamentalist libertarianism, most people are going to roll their eyes. Claims like that the DMV, FDA, and EPA are fascist are always going to sabotage the efforts of reasonable libertarians. It's in reasonable libertarians' self-interest to rein in the libertarian fringe. (Same applies to liberals and conservatives and their own fringes.) Choose your battles one at a time, instead of trying to fight every battle at once.

I doubt that principle will be recognized broadly any time in the next 100 years by any of the 3 groups mentioned above, though, so expect more endless political theater and missed opportunities.