Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Peter Schiff For Senate!

Rate this topic


brian0918

Recommended Posts

My internet connection is too poor to watch videos on and Schiff's website doesn't clarify where he stands on many issues.

Does anyone have this information- basically and issues faq on Schiff or a link to something in text where he states where he stands on things like foreign policy, the dreaded women's issues, welfare, equal treatment of homosexuals, education and the like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Peter Schiff appeared on Freedom Watch and had a little debate with Dr. Brook on foreign policy (at the end of the video). I won't paraphrase or summarize their conversation because I am too busy :D . But I'll just mention that Peter Schiff quoted Thomas Paine: "Government is a necessary evil", to which Dr. Brook responded by saying ... (well, please just watch the video!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter Schiff appeared on Freedom Watch and had a little debate with Dr. Brook on foreign policy (at the end of the video). I won't paraphrase or summarize their conversation because I am too busy :D . But I'll just mention that Peter Schiff quoted Thomas Paine: "Government is a necessary evil", to which Dr. Brook responded by saying ... (well, please just watch the video!).

Actually, he quoted Thomas Jefferson (however Thomas Pain said it also). I wouldn't say they argued Yaron just corrected Peter when he said the necessity of government wasn't evil. They both agreed that the proper role of Government was to protect individual rights, and that's the important thing.

Edited by Rearden_Steel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you consider Iran's continuous support of terrorist activities against Americans a "direct attack"? Or wait, here is a simple one: Do you think 9/11 was a "direct attack"? Remember, several 9/11 attackers received active training in Iran. Maybe you wouldn't consider anything a "direct attack" until Iran drops a nuke it is openly trying to get.

Maybe the US should attack Florida then and wipe out organized crime there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the US should attack Florida then and wipe out organized crime there.
I'm pretty sure the U.S. does go after organized crime in Florida, with the full cooperation of the Florida government. I'm also sure the Florida government goes after such organized crime on its own.

Using a better example (than a state), if some people are plotting in a country like the U.K. (or even India for that matter), it would make sense to let that country go after them. Iran is completely different. At the very least, their government has no interest in helping the U.S.; at worst, they might be actively helping our enemies. Add to that the fact that they are a much more unreliable and unpredictable regime than many others.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the U.S. does go after organized crime in Florida, with the full cooperation of the Florida government. I'm also sure the Florida government goes after such organized crime on its own.

The border between organized crime and government tends to be blurry sometimes.

Using a better example (than a state), if some people are plotting in a country like the U.K. (or even India for that matter), it would make sense to let that country go after them. Iran is completely different. At the very least, their government has no interest in helping the U.S.; at worst, they might be actively helping our enemies. Add to that the fact that they are a much more unreliable and unpredictable regime than many others.

I see zero possibility that a military intervention would harm any terrorist networks there.

Edited by Clawg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The border between organized crime and government tends to be blurry sometimes.

Sometimes, as in case of Iran, where that border has not only just gotten blurry but completely vanished. But in Florida? Could you please elaborate?

I see zero possibility that a military intervention would harm any terrorist networks there.

The moral and financial backbone of those network is the regime that is in place. A few bombs dropped with self-righteousness and determination should be enough, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think that, by Peter saying "The government does so much that they shouldn't do, they are forgoing the one thing they're supposed to do" it begs the question of whether or not Yaron and he actually disagreed. I'd say that Yaron just took an objection to Peter's calling government a "necessary evil." I don't think they disagreed on anything, but rather Yaron - rightfully - thought a better phrase would fit than "necessary evil," and he muttered to Peter right before the segment ended: "I agree with you."

This has only encouraged me that he does not run under the typical "libertarian" foreign policy. He and Yaron have gotten along well together on Freedom Watch in the past...

Edited by Andrew Grathwohl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Iran actually a threat to the United States in terms of having nuclear capacity and the desire/means to use them against us? I remember hearing a lot of claims that Iran could have nuclear weapons on the MSM, but I am hesitant to believe anything I hear out of the MSM in regards to another nation having an insatiable desire to destroy us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This clip earlier on in the Freedom Watch interview outlines Peter Schiff's foreign policy. He discusses the missile defense system in Eastern Europe, and I think it is pretty clear now as to what his position is!

Edited by Andrew Grathwohl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we don't have a very clear picture of Schiff's foreign policy, it doesn't matter very much. He is running for Senate based on domestic issues. Contrast that with Ron Paul, who was running for President during a year when foreign policy was much more important. Paul had a moral stance that the US was to blame for the actions of the Jihadists (he may never have said it, but that was his implication), where Schiff opposes current military operations on fiscal grounds. Plus, Senators don't have as much influence over foreign policy as Presidents, and foreign policy will be an unimportant issue to the American public until more blood is shed. America desperately needs men like Schiff in the Senate.

Is Iran actually a threat to the United States in terms of having nuclear capacity and the desire/means to use them against us?

That's a better question when taken in three parts. The answer to question one is no, Iran doesn't have a nuclear capacity.

The answer to question two is yes, judging by their past actions against US citizens, troops and allies, they have the desire to use them against the US. They would not even have to detonate a nuclear weapon to use one against the US; in the modern day, nukes work like shields - you get away with way more if you have one. I would expect Iran to drastically increase support for their pet jihadists if they had a deployable nuclear arsenal.

Finally, given time and the freedom to act Iran can develop nukes. So the answer to question three is yes. But then again this conclusion is heavily based on the info I get from the mainstream media. I don't think they have degraded to the point that you can't trust them at all.

It's pretty well documented that Iran is in league with Jihadists and that they are working toward nuclear technology. What isn't (and cannot be) documented by the media is Iran's intentions. That's something that each person has to judge for themselves by checking various facts against each other to see if they create a meaningful picture. The conclusion I have drawn leads me to believe that the correct course of action is to stop Iran from attacking the US in any way possible, using the military if necessary. The prospect of nukes just makes the situation more urgent, it doesn't change the fundamentals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested in thoughtful criticism of Schiff's economic/investment advice, check out this lengthy blog-post.

I hope that my thoughts on Schiff's book qualify as "thoughtful". I certainly didn't think much of it.

Compared to what we normally hear, Schiff’s line is good.

He falls down at the end of the first video interview though when he says, “we don’t need to buy more stuff.” It sounds as if he doesn’t realize that we live in capitalism, and unfettered, capitalism will allow us to buy lots of stuff. Lots! He sounds as if he thinks that we will need to suffer a lot to get rid of the mess we are in. The amazing thing about capitalism in the U.S. is that we can solve this mess quickly, once our creative ability is turned loose. The national debt, the trade deficit, the problems with medicine and retirement incomes would not be problems if we can be free to produce. Does Schiff know this?

Another problem with Schiff is his insistence that foreigners, he most often mentions China, are going to dump dollars, because the dollar is worthless. As this expectation of his fails to occur, he is going to lose traction. He will be the man who shouted the sky is going to fall, and it didn’t. I don’t think that we want to be very closely connected with his claims. The consequences of our 30 years of exporting made up money will be bad enough without having to fight reactions to Schiff’s claims as well.

After going through his book with a fine toothcomb and finding very little good reasoning or economics, I can’t be very excited about Schiff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that my thoughts on Schiff's book qualify as "thoughtful". I certainly didn't think much of it.

Compared to what we normally hear, Schiff’s line is good.

He falls down at the end of the first video interview though when he says, “we don’t need to buy more stuff.” It sounds as if he doesn’t realize that we live in capitalism, and unfettered, capitalism will allow us to buy lots of stuff. Lots! He sounds as if he thinks that we will need to suffer a lot to get rid of the mess we are in. The amazing thing about capitalism in the U.S. is that we can solve this mess quickly, once our creative ability is turned loose. The national debt, the trade deficit, the problems with medicine and retirement incomes would not be problems if we can be free to produce. Does Schiff know this?

You completely misunderstand what Peter means, then. We don't need to buy more stuff because we live in a completely consumption-driven economy, allowed by easy money and cheap credit in an economy that consumes more than it produces. He completely acknowledges that this is a failure of government, not the free market. He acknowledges that if the free market were allowed to work, interest rates would have never been at 0.5% and there would have been no financial crisis to speak of.

Another problem with Schiff is his insistence that foreigners, he most often mentions China, are going to dump dollars, because the dollar is worthless. As this expectation of his fails to occur, he is going to lose traction. He will be the man who shouted the sky is going to fall, and it didn’t. I don’t think that we want to be very closely connected with his claims. The consequences of our 30 years of exporting made up money will be bad enough without having to fight reactions to Schiff’s claims as well.

After going through his book with a fine toothcomb and finding very little good reasoning or economics, I can’t be very excited about Schiff.

It would be very arrogant and dishonest to think that decoupling isn't a possibility, let alone the fact that it's already clearly happening.

Honestly, where did you come from? Since when did anybody on this forum not think the dollar was worthless? Of course it's worthless - it's a fiat currency! And in comparison to the rest of the world, our currency has hardly recovered. Why would it? It's a direct indication of an economy that makes nothing productive of its own, and borrows money from the rest of the world to buy everything it does actually own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He falls down at the end of the first video interview though when he says, “we don’t need to buy more stuff.” It sounds as if he doesn’t realize that we live in capitalism, and unfettered, capitalism will allow us to buy lots of stuff. Lots! He sounds as if he thinks that we will need to suffer a lot to get rid of the mess we are in. The amazing thing about capitalism in the U.S. is that we can solve this mess quickly, once our creative ability is turned loose. The national debt, the trade deficit, the problems with medicine and retirement incomes would not be problems if we can be free to produce. Does Schiff know this?

Schiff isn't saying buying things are bad. What he is saying is that were buying things on credit that we can't payback is the problem because we are consuming and not producing. Its the same as if I was unemployed and purchased things on my Visa and when the Visa bill came I pay it off with my Mastercard. This is not capitalism this is insanity.

Another problem with Schiff is his insistence that foreigners, he most often mentions China, are going to dump dollars, because the dollar is worthless. As this expectation of his fails to occur, he is going to lose traction. He will be the man who shouted the sky is going to fall, and it didn’t. I don’t think that we want to be very closely connected with his claims. The consequences of our 30 years of exporting made up money will be bad enough without having to fight reactions to Schiff’s claims as well.

The dollar is already falling have you seen the DXYO latley? The price of gold has already hit a new high of 1028 and the Chinese government is encouraging their citizens to purchase gold. Also Japans new prime minister ran on a campaign that among other things that Japan should stop devaluing their own currency and stop financing US debt. Japan is currently one of the US's largest debt holders.

Given our astronomically high amount of debt and a crippling trade deficit what makes you think that the dollar won't fall?

Edited by Rearden_Steel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You completely misunderstand what Peter means, then. We don't need to buy more stuff because we live in a completely consumption-driven economy, allowed by easy money and cheap credit in an economy that consumes more than it produces.

I didn’t realize how much of a following Schiff has here. Do any of you follow the Objectivist economists as closely? John Lewis recently published a dire warning, which is a much greater disaster coming upon us that what Schiff’s “crash”.

My "completely misunderstood" response to Schiff is based upon Schiff's statements. Either he doesn't speak or write well, or he does not really understand capitalism. (Schiff is often not clear. Between his book and the few videos I have seen, he has called inflation at least four different things.) A little decorum would be appreciated.

Yes, today's theorists claim that an economy is consumption-driven. Please, sir, understand that just because our opponents say that does not make it so. In order for it to be consumed it must be produced. Any attempt to do the opposite (which can not actually be done) results in lowered production. Freedom, actual capitalism is a production powerhouse. To imply, as Schiff does, that returning to a rational, free, capitalistic system is going to result in deprivation or less stuff is to have things reversed. Capitalism results in a higher standard of living.

Since when did anybody on this forum not think the dollar was worthless? Of course it's worthless - it's a fiat currency! It's a direct indication of an economy that makes nothing productive of its own, and borrows money from the rest of the world to buy everything it does actually own.

In case you hadn't noticed, there is no currency in the world on the gold standard. All currencies are fiat currencies. All currencies are worthless.

This is another of Schiff's claims: that the U.S. economy produces nothing of value; that the U.S. economy is a zero. Schiff presents no proof. (I am just now getting my hands on his revised book.)

Yes, we have gotten free goods for decades. No, it isn't good for us. But do not ignore that it is a trade deficit. Last year foreigners bought $1.84T of goods and services from the U.S. That was well short of what we bought, granted. But it does not allow you or Schiff to then claim that the U.S. does not produce. The foreign buyers are not irrational idiots. They are spending their money for the best products they can find in the world, just as you would. We are a very productive society. Our government has done lots of disgraceful things, but most Americans are very productive.

As far as the borrowing goes. Foreigners have about $11T. Our federal debt is about $11T. I don't have the figures as to what debt they have, but most of the debt is here, in the U.S. (Last I checked, the Fed. had about $800B.)

The dollar, compared to other countries, should be lower than it is. But it is not "worthless". I certainly hope that, most readers of this forum realize that the dollar is not worthless. It is certainly worth less.

Edited by C.W.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schiff isn't saying buying things are bad. What he is saying is that were buying things on credit that we can't payback is the problem because we are consuming and not producing. ... This is not capitalism this is insanity.

To the sense of your comment, I agree. I agree wholeheartedly. I am not sure that Schiff means that, however. If you are right, good.

The dollar is already falling have you seen the DXYO lately? The price of gold has already hit a new high of 1028 and the Chinese government is encouraging their citizens to purchase gold. Also Japans new prime minister ran on a campaign that among other things that Japan should stop devaluing their own currency and stop financing US debt. Japan is currently one of the US's largest debt holders.

Given our astronomically high amount of debt and a crippling trade deficit what makes you think that the dollar won't fall?

I think that the dollar will fall, as it has fallen. I agree with you generally, although what I find crippling is not the single year deficit, but 30 years worth. It is hanging over us. Even if we could get the Fed to stop the money pump today, we would have that accumulation still hanging there.

But Schiff does not say that the dollar is going to fall (Sometimes he does become unclear what he really means, however. He once said what sounded like the “crash” would be slow.). The word Schiff uses is "Crash". He says "dump". He does not mean that the dollar will annually drop 10%, 15%, or even 25% against other currencies. He says it will loose all value. The sky will fall.

The actions that may be taken in China and Japan will, I am sure, be responses to the dollar's troubles, and Obama's insanity. Neither set of leaders, however, is going to cause an additional mess in their own economies, and undercut their reserves by "dumping" the dollar and causing a "crash". Schiff claims they will.

I will allow that something out there could cause what no one really wants, a real "crash". Just like our recent panic, things can go crosswise fast and badly in our over regulated world, and none of the leaders understands economics. But, that isn't Schiff’s claim either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither set of leaders, however, is going to cause an additional mess in their own economies

Schiff doesn't claim they will. He has repeatedly asserted that the Chinese will eventually start buying the stuff that they currently export to the US, once they realize we're incapable of repaying our debt. That is how they will dump the dollar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My "completely misunderstood" response to Schiff is based upon Schiff's statements. Either he doesn't speak or write well, or he does not really understand capitalism.

He definitely could be a better writer and speaker. But at least he knows what capitalism is. I don't know where you get the idea he doesn't understand capitalism.

Yes, today's theorists claim that an economy is consumption-driven. Please, sir, understand that just because our opponents say that does not make it so. In order for it to be consumed it must be produced. Any attempt to do the opposite (which can not actually be done) results in lowered production. Freedom, actual capitalism is a production powerhouse. To imply, as Schiff does, that returning to a rational, free, capitalistic system is going to result in deprivation or less stuff is to have things reversed. Capitalism results in a higher standard of living.

Where did he say there would be less stuff? He only said that you don't *need* to buy stuff. That doesn't mean that you *shouldn't ever* buy stuff. That's why he talks about easy money. Because people operate as though they just *need* to buy more rather than think about "is this worth buying?". What *does* need to be done is production.

This is another of Schiff's claims: that the U.S. economy produces nothing of value; that the U.S. economy is a zero. Schiff presents no proof. (I am just now getting my hands on his revised book.)

I can't think of anything the US produces that is of greater value than other countries. Maybe software, but besides that... "Nothing" of value would be a poor word choice, but it's safe to say this is what he means. Could you list some things that are produced in the US of great value?

Yes, we have gotten free goods for decades. No, it isn't good for us. But do not ignore that it is a trade deficit. Last year foreigners bought $1.84T of goods and services from the U.S.

Can I see a source of this? I don't doubt that it is true, but that number taken alone says very little.

The dollar, compared to other countries, should be lower than it is. But it is not "worthless". I certainly hope that, most readers of this forum realize that the dollar is not worthless. It is certainly worth less.

Would you honestly invest anything into the dollar? I wouldn't, because I think it's worthless. Also, you said yourself that fiat currencies are worthless.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you honestly invest anything into the dollar? I wouldn't, because I think it's worthless.

If you truly believe that dollars are worthless, can I have yours? Right now?

Not all fiat currencies are equivalent. The Zimbabwe dollar is worthless. I've seen a hundred trillion Zimbabwe dollar bill that could not be used to buy anything. I used US dollars to buy lunch yesterday. Clearly there is a difference here. Both currencies may be on the same kind of decay curve, for the same fundamental reason, but they're at different points. Ultimately the value of any currency, gold included, is what you can get in exchange for it. Since I can get things in exchange for American dollars, they are not currently worthless.

None of this is to say that fiat currencies are good. The fact that they can be created ex nihilo by the political class means that they are likely to be inflated *into* worthlessness over the long run. But that isn't the same as being worthless immediately, and the long run can take a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't think of anything the US produces that is of greater value than other countries. ...

Can I see a source of [the 1.8T U.S. export number] I don't doubt that it is true, but that number taken alone says very little.

If you type "FRED Database" into Google, you'll reach a page of various government-compiled statistics. The section on "International Trade" will show you the figures.

The U.S. official data is as follows (approx.): Imports $2.4 T - exports $1.8 T

So, the U.S. exports a lot of goods and services, just not as much as it imports.

More important, the official GDP of the U.S. is about $14 T. So, we only import between 10% to 20% of our goods and services.

Here's a way to think about this: what are the main costs in a typical family budget: Housing, Food, Healthcare, Schooling, Autos, government-related services (like the Army and cops paid for by tax-dollars). These areas have a much higher degree of U.S. based production than non-food consumer goods like T.V.s, towels and vacuum-cleaners.

This site has some details about the types of products imported and exported.

I have not read Schiff's book, so I'm judging from TV where he may not be able to present his full case; but, with that said, he comes across as thinking that the U.S. government is far worse than other governments around the world in terms of economic issues. Meanwhile China is undergoing higher inflation, and is pumping credit into its economy like there's no tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably should say I meant the value is "pretend", since it's value isn't based upon anything that isn't arbitrary.

Forget about that other guy who asked for your money. Prove me that the dollar only has pretend value: give me your "pretend" dollars, with the presidents on them, and I'll give you some of my pretend dollars, they have Looney Tunes characters on them. Trade you at a rate of a Daffy for a Benjamin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...