The heroic Peter Schiff vs. OWS

[2046]

Peter Schiff drew a crowd when he went to the NYC Occupy protest with a sign that says "I am the 1%. Let's talk." to pretty much take on whoever approached him.

You can watch the videos on the Occupy the Fed Ustream:

http://www.ustream.t...corded/17999453

Edited October 22, 2011 by 2046

[softwareNerd]

Got to give it to him: the guy has guts!

[TheEgoist]

This guy is a bad ass, plain and simple.

[brianleepainter]

Good to see Peter Schiff down there. Thanks for posting this video.

[John Link]

The audio and video are not so great, but I'm impressed with the way Peter Schiff handled himself. I think he may have gotten through to a few people.

I've posted the link to the video on my facebook page and suggest the rest of you do the same.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=583006604

John Link

[oso]

If only people like him had bigger voices.

[IchorFigure]

I love Peter Schiff and we are arranged to get married. There, I said it.

Seriously though this is a great vid it contains just about every false argument you'll find from protestors all in one condensed place. Here's a mini timeline of their arguments:

The first man uses a common argument that high taxes and the govt. spending on WWII ended the depression. A common false Keynesian economics argument. Peter argues the high tax rates were such that few even paid them and the wars end boosted the economy.

The same man next argues that the wealthiest producers would still prosper and produce just as much with high taxes and restrictions. An argument that amounts to blind robotic Determinism. "Someone else would have done it anyway". He assumes people will always produce wealth magically just "somehow" no matter what the burdens are.

He mentions the "croney" Bill Clinton who helped repeal part of the Glass-Steagall Act which placed restrictions between banks and investment banks. Statists cling to this one factoid because it's the one single tidbit of deregulation they can point to and blame the free market amongst the massively regulated banking industry.

At 5:00 another man asks a question but I can't make out his statement. But at 6:50 he makes the non-sequitor that the alternative to a powerful statist government is anarchy and no government which Peter is not advocating.

7:20 someone asks "where should we be protesting then". He replies the White House, the Fed, Congress. "But does it really matter where if the idea is (inaudible)". Uhmm yes, it does matter.

11:00 the same man blames the short-term thinking of business. Which is totally true but when you subsidize their failed short-term irrationality you reward it. So the answer is to punish irrational short-term business thinking by letting them fail.

15:40 "Which one regulation repeal caused it". Again, the only example is the precious Glass-Steagall Act. Then at 16:30 the same self-righteous man has the nerve to straight up tell him he wants to force him to take his money. Peter's reply "I would stop working, see you next February".

The rest of the video is either redundant or inaudible. The impression I'm left with is that O.W.S. protestors (the better among them) are terribly ignorant of history, economics, politics, and human nature.

[John Link]

If only people like him had bigger voices.

You can help him have a bigger voice by posting a link to the video on your Facebook page.

[Sluggy Bear]

Here's a funny picture that says it all about the Wall Street Protestor crowd: http://i673.photobuc...selvesProud.jpg

Peter Schiff has some great items.

[Mikee]

here is a clearer view:

[TheEgoist]

One thing I've had trouble with lately is the idea of corporate personhood and the practice of limited liability. While in a free society I can possibly see this emerging naturally, having it implemented as a matter of law seems Corporatist, not Capitalist. This is an area I confess a great deal of ignorance in, though. Schiff seems to think it's fine, as I expect he would. I didn't hear a concise reason for his conviction, though.

[2046]

Here is an actually helpful article at the TLS by the evil Stephan Kinsella that I think kind of clears a lot of misunderstandings about limited liability and corporate personhood up.

http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2011/10/18/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/

[2046]

Also, CNN's Anderson Cooper picked up the story and had some hilarious commie hack to debate him. Notice how Peter gets the supposedly anti-Wall Street professor to admit that he supports perpetual bailouts of banks in the form of federal deposit insurance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpcteDgMZ1c

[softwareNerd]

One thing I've had trouble with lately is the idea of corporate personhood and the practice of limited liability.

There's a thread here (and it links to another one).

[Mikee]

this is a good book on the subject as well: http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Corporation-HOOVER-PRESS-PUBLICATION/dp/081797072X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319849579&sr=8-1

[Mikee]

[Mikee]

another video:

[2046]

CNN's Anderson Cooper has been continuing this story involving Schiff, and recently he interviewed Michael Moore in Oakland to get his reaction to some of Schiff's statements. Note the journalistic standards involved here, e.g. when Schiff was on AC's show, not only did Cooper bring on someone of the opposing view to debate him, Cooper himself challenged Peter with getting him to respond to opposing arguments. Fair enough right? Yet not once did Cooper challenge either Prof. West, or Michael Moore in the same manner. In fact, AC's question to Moore was "What do you think he does not get?" Hahaha... (Anderson Cooper makes a big deal about how he is fair and presents all sides to the story.) But anyway, Moore never actually responds to Schiff, just kind of says "Oh my God" and brushes it away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jda8d9BjyiU

Schiff responded on his radio show to Moore's confused conception of capitalism, showing how many of his previous statements are inconsistent, also mentioning his earlier statements on CNN's Piers Morgan, in which the multi-millionaire socialist film director claims he is not in the "one percent."

MOORE: Isn’t that amazing? Really, I’m here talking against my own interests.

MORGAN: What’s the matter with you?

MOORE: What’s wrong with me?

MORGAN:  You crazy man. He makes a good point. You’re in the 1 percent?

MOORE:  I’m not in the 1 percent.

MORGAN: Probably 0.2 percent?

MOORE: No.

MORGAN: You’re one of the most successful filmmakers in the country.

MOORE: No, I’m not. For a documentary filmmaker, I’m doing well.

MORGAN: You’re splitting hairs.

MOORE: There’s a big difference between a documentary and “Avatar.”

MORGAN: There is.

MOORE: I’m not that. Let me just say –

MORGAN: There are people watching that say “Michael Moore, rich guy.”

[...]

Morgan: I need you to admit the bleeding obvious.  I need you to sit here and say 'I'm in the 1%', because it's important--

Moore: Well, I can't, because I'm not.

Morgan: You are though.

Moore: No, I'm not!  I'm not!

Morgan: You're not in the 1 percent?!

Moore: Of course I'm not!  How could I be in the 1 percent?!

Edited October 30, 2011 by 2046

[2046]

[2046]

And also there's this one of Moore versus Schiff:

[2046]

Fox picks up the story finally. Of course, this time Peter didn't get challenged. Such terrible news media we have:

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

[2046]

And now Business Insider is running an article claiming Schiff is a racist (specifically "racist economics" wtf?), because he once said the following: "Employers should be able to discriminate based on race."

http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-schiff-more-racist-economics-from-a-libertarian-2011-10

plenty of good comments on the site