Savings have not vanished, at least not globally. Virtually all developed, and previously rapidly developing countries in Asia such as China and Japan have high household savings rates, many have large trade or budget surpluses. Agree on some of the rest, although I don't quite subscribe to his doomsday scenario for a number of reasons.

>> ^RedSky:
Savings have not vanished, at least not globally.


Schiff knows that, but he didn't clarify it in this video. He often cites the high savings rates in Japan and China.

He attributes the poor economic conditions in "creditor" nations to the fact that the USA has borrowed huge amounts from them and hasn't payed it back. That's probably what he meant about the savings being gone... if they loaned their savings to us then they might not get them back.


As far as the inflationary thing, it could definitely happen. If we keep printing money then we'll force the situation. The more dollars there are, the less each dollar will be worth.

Right now a lot of companies are selling their products at deep discounts in order to stay afloat. This helps strengthen the dollar because foreign buyers are more than willing to take advantage of the discounts. The problem is that it can't last forever... once the current inventories are gone many companies will have to raise prices or simply go out of business.


I guess only time will tell whether we'll see yet another "Peter Schiff was right" compilation on youtube.

Hey, another video of Peter Paul talking about the past, but bringing nothing to the table of what to do in the future.

And to think the Libtards are on the fringe!

I wonder if Peter knows about his BFF Ron Paul getting almost $100million dollars in earmarks from the new spending bill:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6286883.html

"Paul played a role in obtaining 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million"


Oh sure, Paul railed against the bill. Called it "socialism" and "fascism" at the CPAC circle-jerk. But, just as I expected, he's all talk and nothing else.

>> ^volumptuous:
Hey, another video of Peter Paul talking about the past, but bringing nothing to the table of what to do in the future.


As always, Schiff promotes spending cuts. He thinks the federal government should stop spending more than it takes in... now, or in the future.

Considering how few people there are promoting responsible spending I suppose it would seem like a "fringe" idea.

Everyone likes the concept of "spending cuts". Just like everyone likes the idea of "fun".

Where most disagree with Peter and Paul is what they want to cut. That's where they enter the fringe of our society; by praying for the elimination of NASA, CDC, EPA, NIH, etc. If it were up to these guys we'd never have the internet or the Brooklyn bridge.

^ Everyone has opinions on what should be cut and what shouldn't, but that doesn't mean that we can keep the deficit spending going without bad things happening.

If you cut spending then you upset people who supported the areas you cut. If you raise taxes then you run the risk of inhibiting the economy and convincing businesses to relocate to less restrictive countries. If you leave the deficit spending in place then you can eventually destroy the economy and/or currency.

I'm curious as to which direction the government will choose (perhaps one not listed), but I think Schiff is very close to the truth about the dangers of our current policies.

>> ^volumptuous:
Hey, another video of Peter Paul talking about the past, but bringing nothing to the table of what to do in the future.
And to think the Libtards are on the fringe!
I wonder if Peter knows about his BFF Ron Paul getting almost $100million dollars in earmarks from the new spending bill:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6286883.html
"Paul played a role in obtaining 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million"

Oh sure, Paul railed against the bill. Called it "socialism" and "fascism" at the CPAC circle-jerk. But, just as I expected, he's all talk and nothing else.


So Ron Paul's constituents are supposed to pay taxes and get nothing back on principle? If his district could opt out of paying taxes I would understand your point but they can't so I don't.

Where Schiff and Paul fail is their black-or-white style of policies.

Like I said before; These guys don't want to just see which projects to cut. They want to completely eliminate almost every program the federal government operates.

Medicare, Medicaid, NASA, NIH, CDC, EPA, public schools, and on and on and on.

This isn't about one party smoothing the edges of the others' policies. This is a very fringe group of people who make up a miniscule amount of our population, wanting to completely destroy policies and projects that most of the rest of us want and enjoy.

I know Peter Schiff doesn't like to spend money but the dude needs to get a new webcam, honestly

>> ^cdominus:
So Ron Paul's constituents are supposed to pay taxes and get nothing back on principle? If his district could opt out of paying taxes I would understand your point but they can't so I don't.


Actually yes. If Ron Paul's constituents want there to be spending cuts, let them be the first to forego feeding at the pork trough.

Either this is a principled stand, or it isn't.

If the idea here is to reduce the deficit, that means continuing to pay taxes, or pay higher taxes, while cutting spending. That's what "living within your means" is supposed to mean, right?

Or perhaps you think that meant cutting spending on other people first, while continuing to get your own taxes cut?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul453.html

Second paragraph.

Things must be getting really bad if Peter Schiff can no longer afford a decent video camera.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillips5.html

Here's another one.

>> ^Psychologic:
^ Everyone has opinions on what should be cut and what shouldn't, but that doesn't mean that we can keep the deficit spending going without bad things happening.
If you cut spending then you upset people who supported the areas you cut. If you raise taxes then you run the risk of inhibiting the economy and convincing businesses to relocate to less restrictive countries. If you leave the deficit spending in place then you can eventually destroy the economy and/or currency.
I'm curious as to which direction the government will choose (perhaps one not listed), but I think Schiff is very close to the truth about the dangers of our current policies.


If they're to be believed, it's supposed tremendous increases in efficiency coupled with a rise in spending on underfunded sectors while simultaneous engineering investment in other new areas.

In regards to your other post before, regarding inflation and currency depreciation - my thoughts

To add to that, the potential, inevitable problem with cutting spending in a moment of crisis such as now is creating a downwards depressionary spiral. If that happens to substantially diminish later tax returns because of a litany of companies going bust, then current fiscal prudence would have done little other than confirming the inevitable and worsening the budget deficit still. Fiscal policy, while an anathema to ideologues who oppose any form of intervention has been a consistent and effective means governments have used to prop up economies in moments of downturn.