Corporations are people!, except of course when they fuck things up for everyone.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, October 28th, 2011 3:52pm PDT - promote requested by Boise_Lib.

*quality
This is what I meant--hit the wrong one ^

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Boise_Lib.

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.

It's just so...sad how he repeatedly rewrites history to fit his twisted view. Free market ended child labor alone? hah!

It's insanity to not agree with dystopianfuturetoday on this. We've got record profits for corporations, all time low taxes for them. Where are the jobs....where are the jobs?

Can anyone fact check what schiff said to the protesters? It appears he's pretty obviously lying when he says gov't takes half of what he earns. but it would be nice to have something to fire back when people say shit like that.

But even if he is true. taxing the uber wealthy at 50 percent may not exactly be horrible. even at 50 percent they still live like sultans. They're still here in the USA. If the tax rate is so horrible, why haven't they left? History has shown that high tax rates don't necessarily kill jobs. Combine that with the history we're living right now that low taxes does NOT create jobs.

If someone pulls a gun on your spouse and says "if you take a step closer, I'll kill them" If you step forward, it's still the gunman's fault if they shoot them. That's what I think of every time a CEO says they might not hire anybody or start firing if they raise taxes. It's still their fault...their responsibility when they hold us hostage like that, not Gov't.

Basic Spiderman 101: With great power, comes great responsibility. And the CEOs have forgotten that.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Peter Schiff Cornell West on CNN Anderson Cooper 360' to 'Peter Schiff, Cornell West, CNN, Anderson Cooper, 360' - edited by kulpims

Anyone who argues for abolishing federal deposit insurance instantly qualifies as a nut in my book.

He should go back in time to the Great Depression and see how the households who lost their savings and ended up standing in bread lines liked it before he starts sputtering such nonsense.

Schooled.

>> ^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.

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.

>> ^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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

@marbles.
dude.
are you even aware of how contradictory your arguments have been of late?
and the irony of calling people out for using strawmen arguments when that is all i have seen you post?
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 exclude myself from any of the criticisms in this comment.)

The thing about a true free market is it requires responsible consumers and we are most certainly not responsible people on the whole. Consumers need to be willing to organize protests and boycotts, and even to create new competition by starting new businesses in order to keep everything in check. How many protesters are looking to start their own small credit unions?

Ironically, OWS is one of the first signs I've ever seen that people are moving away from the complacency which prevents a free market system from working and yet all they want is to be able to go back to the complacency we've all enjoyed for our entire lives until recently. We don't want to take responsibility for our country on a daily basis; we want to think about it for a week before election day and designate someone else to do it for us. After all, the McRib is back and those things aren't going to eat themselves.

I really think there are numerous systems which can successfully regulate a market but we've got these bits and pieces of several of them that don't work together. The people we've put in charge of this stuff all have such deep emotional attachments to their one economic gospel that they're often unwilling to even honestly discuss things with anyone from a different church.

>> ^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.

@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.

@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 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.

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.

I'm disappointed in Cornell West. The harder he tries to push Keynesian spending, the less sense he makes.

We have a "Lost Decade" coming up, because just like Japan, we bailed out the corrupt banks. Keynesian spending won't help because the bad investments are still on the books.

@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.

I don't get it. How can the money just disappear in the housing market? Houses were built by housing construction companies. Those companies were paid by the banks at some point. 10 years ago, 20, or 50 years ago. The banks then lend the house to a borrower through a 30 year mortgage. Banks buy and sell houses in a cycle. Housing price bubble grows and grows over years, and pops. Home values plummet. How did the system as a whole lose any money because of its popping though? I can see how the banks got burned badly, which in turn burned home buyers. But how does this hurt one of the first actors, the housing construction companies or the home sellers who filled up the bank's home inventories?

Did the banks buy too many houses for too high a price from the construction companies? If so, then isn't the money with the housing companies or whoever previously owned these homes?

For example, before the Recession, my grandma owned a house worth at least $700,000 in San Francisco. Let's say she had sold the house to the bank for $700k, then the bank tries to sell the house for $1.4 million over 30 years (including 5.25% interest).. but isn't able to find anyone willing to buy at that price. Before they realized this, they buy a LOT of houses from people like my grandma (who may as well be a housing construction company), all for $700k. They have no one to sell to and have to lower the prices of their home inventories. Now they realize they've made a huge error buying all these $700k homes when they should've bought them for $500k (which is what my grandma's house is worth about now). So what's the big deal? The $700k is in my grandma's account, no? So how did the overall system lose any money? My grandma has to spend that money or give it to someone eventually, so it's not like it just vanished into the air.

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

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. Overly simplistic, and you're confusing to some degree what is Keynesian. A central tenant of Keynesian economics is counter-cyclical budget deficits. When there's a recession, the government should run deficits, and the larger the recession, the larger the corresponding deficit. That's been a non-stop, although admittedly abused, government policy since the Depression. Also, Keynesian economics had components in it for monetary policy as well. Keynes advocated for lower interest rates during times of recession along with increasing the monetary supply. Yes, he did believe that during more severe recessions that monetary measures would not be enough, but he nevertheless advocated for the various monetary policies. These align up with most recessions as far as what the gov't did from the Great Depression on. Just because Keynesian policies disappointed during the 1970's, the ideas were not altogether abandoned ever since. The simple fact of the matter is aside from 2007, there hadn't been a particularly severe recession since the 1970s, so it's reasonable to assume that direct employment wasn't deemed necessary, not that it was seen as bad policy in all cases.

B. It happened to me by the hand of Microsoft. I'm pretty sure they didn't have flunky MBAs. ;-)

C. There are a lot of similar issues involved. My point was only that you can't just tie requirements to it, and that's that. There are a huge myriad of issues that would come hand in hand with stipulations to unemployment. Your idea is still something I'd be onboard with if those devils in the details were addressed. I do see as an example that some people become unemployed because of structural changes to the economy that causes their jobs to never come back. As a case in point, textile factory workers who lose their jobs due to offshoring are suddenly in a position where market forces have no remedy. They lack the skills to get jobs in areas of growth such as more in depth computer skills, and likely lack the financial resources to get the education and training to get said skills because they're unemployed. This is a perfect example in my opinion where the market and free trade fail from time to time, and some force, likely the gov't, needs to step in for the good of everyone. These people would benefit from retraining, so they can get a good job, business owners benefit from increasing numbers of workers who can do the jobs they're needing people to do, and it becomes a win win situation.

D. The last time we tried no deposit insurance, it failed miserably. Banks lent money for people to buy goods and services they couldn't afford, and stocks on the margin. People stuck their money in banks anyway. The only difference is when fear hit the market after the crash, a lot of people, many irrationally, pulled their money from banks, causing a collapse in the banking system, which tanked the entire economy even further.

People lack the time and/or motivation to stay informed on all kinds of issues from local politics, to PTA meetings. I don't see how they could begin to assess what loans their banks were making as far as riskiness. And the typical American when it comes to finances? Yikes! Next to no savings, can't understand how much they should be regularly investing, etc. And it's not just the stupid people. Most Americans don't even know what a mutual fund actually is. How could they possibly make intelligent decisions about the riskiness of their banks' portfolios? I consider myself smarter than the average bear, but even I'd be paralyzed with fear selecting a bank based what little info I could find of their portfolios. Instead, I make sure they're FDIC insured, because that in and of itself entails objective benchmarks to even get that insurance.

And honestly, I don't see many people making decisions about their banks based on rates alone. As a case in point, very few people I know put money in online high yield savings accounts instead of the local credit union, bank, or large megabank, despite the fact that in most cases online savings account providers such as ING Direct pay 2-3 times the interest. I don't believe that's what caused the madness in the banking industry at all. At the very least, there's a massive list of causes well above FDIC insurance, and even if FDIC insurance did play a role in causing the crisis, it also served well in preventing runs on the banks in general that would have compounded the crisis further.

>> ^bmacs27:

@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. Lol at counter-cyclic budget deficits. I know they played that whole shell game with social security in the 90s, but other than that, I don't think we've really been running many counter-cyclic Keynesian surpluses. The other thing to remember is that monetarism is a derivative of Keynesian theory, so it isn't surprising that they have some overlapping prescriptions. I guess I would push my argument further by stating that Greenspan is broadly considered a monetarist, and he pretty much ran the economy over that interval. Teh maestro.

B. Heh, you sure about that? "I LOVE this COMPANY!!!!!!!"

C. I think we pretty much agree here without getting to wonkish.

D. My GF is in ING. It's now capital one, so she's likely leaving it. Pretty much I wish your average bank was much smaller than they are today. Also, I wouldn't be so confident in that FDIC insurance. The FDIC itself is in some dire straights. Also, they just moved all that bad Merrill paper into FDIC insured subsidiaries of BoA so that they could borrow against the deposits at better short term rates to support it.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Peter Schiff, Cornell West, CNN, Anderson Cooper, 360' to 'Peter Schiff, Cornel West, CNN, Anderson Cooper, 360' - edited by xxovercastxx

A. We have been running counter-cyclical deficits. You can say what you want about the "shell game", which I btw don't agree with as a characterization, in the mid to late 90's, but compare that to the deficits run post 9/11. There's a marked difference. Compare George W. Bush deficits of the mid 2000's to what Obama has done. When the economy tanked, deficits grew, not stayed the same or shrunk.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_deficit_100.png

I completely agree with you we have failed to run surpluses when the economy has been prospering. That is absolutely the case, but you definitely see swelling of deficits in response to recessions in the chart above. That's a Keynesian idea, even if it is shared with the monetarists.

B. Yeah, I'm sure. Granted, LOL @ Ballmer from time to time.

D. Individuals may be skeptical of the FDIC right now, but we're speaking of the influence systemically of the FDIC. This past financial crisis was all about a credit crisis. Part of why the recession occurred occurred was an eroding of available credit due to pervasive fear and mistrust, a lot among banking institutions of each other. The last thing we needed was a run on the banks, and that was very largely avoided. The FDIC was a huge reason for that. Had there been, more banks would have gone under, and banks still surviving would have been even more irrationally tight on lending. That would have been absolutely disastrous. There's little doubt in my mind we would have seen 20% unemployment.

>> ^bmacs27:

A. Lol at counter-cyclic budget deficits. I know they played that whole shell game with social security in the 90s, but other than that, I don't think we've really been running many counter-cyclic Keynesian surpluses. The other thing to remember is that monetarism is a derivative of Keynesian theory, so it isn't surprising that they have some overlapping prescriptions. I guess I would push my argument further by stating that Greenspan is broadly considered a monetarist, and he pretty much ran the economy over that interval. Teh maestro.
B. Heh, you sure about that? "I LOVE this COMPANY!!!!!!!"
C. I think we pretty much agree here without getting to wonkish.
D. My GF is in ING. It's now capital one, so she's likely leaving it. Pretty much I wish your average bank was much smaller than they are today. Also, I wouldn't be so confident in that FDIC insurance. The FDIC itself is in some dire straights. Also, they just moved all that bad Merrill paper into FDIC insured subsidiaries of BoA so that they could borrow against the deposits at better short term rates to support it.

@bmacs27 I've been wanting to come back and reply for a couple days now, but didn't have the time. Now I hesitate to messing with the good conversation that followed, so I'll just touch on the points I'm interested in from the whole conversation. If I skip something you really wanted me to answer, let me know!

For one, I do tend to have an odd mix of pro-market and anti-market beliefs. On unemployment, my answer is that in an ideal world, I would want people entitled to some sort of minimum guaranteed income, no matter whether what they do. I like unemployment insurance because it's kinda like that, only with pragmatic real-world strings attached (it's limited in duration, and you've gotta be looking for work and not finding anything, and it stops when you get a new job...).

heropsycho already gave the more economics-minded answer I would've given about unemployment benefits helping prop up demand, and keep the economy from shedding even more jobs. I'd go along with your "you get unemployment, but we're going to make it contingent on you attending free job retraining", but I'd also go along with a WPA-style "we won't pay you unemployment, we'll just directly hire you" sort of arrangement, especially in a jobs market full of laid off construction workers.

heropsycho also gave the succinct answer I was going to give about hoarding labor -- worker salaries and benefits are always on the "cost" side of the company's ledger, and people often get fired long before they become an outright loss to the business. Usually it's because you've become less profitable than what they think they could make by replacing you with someone else (or by just by making other workers work more hours).

And no, I'm not a protectionist who wants to see unions and/or government forcing companies to employ people who're losing them money, I'm in favor of having a social safety net so there's no moral issue with companies laying people off (that's why I like the idea of a minimum guaranteed income).

On the topic of whose economic theories we've followed post-Volcker, for the most part, it's been Monetarist-style monetary policy, coupled with ideological right-wing fiscal policy. Namely, a targeted package of policies aimed at redistributing wealth from the poor and middle classes to the rich. That still leaves things a bit blurry, because the only economic justifications for debt-fueled tax cuts are Keynesian, and modern (New) Keynesians have largely adopted monetarist notions of monetary policy.

But the big disagreement between modern Monetarists and modern Keynesians is about fiscal policy -- Monetarists say it can't work, Keynesians say it can. Part of what confuses people a bit, is that Republicans adopt whatever economic theory justifies what they started out wanting to do. Keynes is right when they want to borrow money to cut taxes, Monetarists are right when Obama wants to pass a stimulus program, and Austrians are right when the Fed tries to help the economy by printing money when a Democrat is in the White House.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by VoodooV.

Awarding eric3579 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.