Peter Schiff talks about the effects of Obama on economy

[jonquest]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSixu-wxvKI[/YOUTUBE]

Having the first African American President is great and everything, but Obama is going to worsen the economy. He's going to implement the exact opposite of what we need.

jonquest Reviewed by jonquest on 11-16-2008. Peter Schiff talks about the effects of Obama on economy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSixu-wxvKI Having the first African American President is great and everything, but Obama is going to worsen the economy. He's going to implement the exact opposite of what we need. Rating: 5

[JakeMartinez]

Number 1: Low interest is good for the economy. This guy doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about on interest.

Number 2: Trickle-down economics (I like Bush Sr.'s term...'Voodoo Economics') don't work. The rest of the world accepts this now that the shit hit the fan.

Number 3: Government programs, what he called "entitlement spending" may or may not be bad for the economy, but they are good for the people. The people come first.

Number 4: His way of thinking won't scale back government. It will abolish government. Have fun with that.

Number 5: He bitches and bitches and bitches, but do I hear any better ideas than at least trying Democrats instead of Republicans? No. All he did was say that it's a problem that's been building for years.

Number 6: Whether or not we're still paying off the New Deal, that's fucking worthless compared to the money we're hemorrhaging right now.

Number 7: Ron Paul wasn't chosen by the bankers to be in the running for president. And, even if he had won, he would have been powerless after those big banking types have a chat with him about the economy.

Number 8: We should start paying off our debts? No. That's not how this system operates. Money is created out of debt in a fractional reserve system (that's the system we live under, if you didn't know). Also, the amount we owe on our money to the world and to the Fed is GREATER than the money supply. What does that mean, then? Paying off debts leads to contraction, and that leads to chaos in our society.

My point being that this guy said Obama will usher in the Great Depression without giving any reasons that could have easily been applied to McCain as well. There was some sort of bias there, even if he wouldn't admit it.

I'd like to give that guy a call and ask him if he has the balls to say that we're going to hit a depression because, GUESS WHAT? Obama got elected. I'll bet you one of my famous pan-fried steaks that he'll downplay what he said on this program.

[psychocat]

Jake , I think Obama has inherited a shitload of problems and he isn't alone in the struggle with the current GLOBAL downturn.
IMO
Economics in the modern world seems to mean a constant rob Peter to pay Paul mentality.

[Markass]

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


Peter Schiff didn't know what the fuck he was talking about previously as well...but oh wait...he was right???

Artificially low interest rates create bubbles, which is what's happening now, hide and watch, Mr. Martinez, hide and watch.:wtf:

[jonquest]

Number 1: Low interest is good for the economy. This guy doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about on interest.

Low interest rates on mortgages set by the Federal Reserve were one of the main causes of the current financial crisis. What Mr. Schiff is saying is that the problem that we should be looking at right now is the upcoming inflation. Cheap credit is only going to make this problem much worse because more people will be taking out loans, causing more money to be created, and thus, inflation.

Number 2: Trickle-down economics (I like Bush Sr.'s term...'Voodoo Economics') don't work. The rest of the world accepts this now that the shit hit the fan.

Trickle-down economics is not a free market with sound money, which is what Peter Schiff advocates.

Number 3: Government programs, what he called "entitlement spending" may or may not be bad for the economy, but they are good for the people. The people come first.

We need to decrease the welfare state. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is wrong morally and economically.

Number 4: His way of thinking won't scale back government. It will abolish government. Have fun with that.

I don't think Schiff is advocating anarchy.

Number 5: He bitches and bitches and bitches, but do I hear any better ideas than at least trying Democrats instead of Republicans? No. All he did was say that it's a problem that's been building for years.

What the government needs to do is nothing. Let the free market do its job and set prices. Also, greatly reduce taxation. He's been tracing this problem for years and everyone laughed at him when he said the financial crisis was coming. He was one of the only ones to diagnose the problem early on, but now we are listening to those who caused the problem for the solution.

Number 6: Whether or not we're still paying off the New Deal, that's fucking worthless compared to the money we're hemorrhaging right now.

I agree. Government spending needs to be greatly reduced in many areas.

Number 7: Ron Paul wasn't chosen by the bankers to be in the running for president. And, even if he had won, he would have been powerless after those big banking types have a chat with him about the economy.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Number 8: We should start paying off our debts? No. That's not how this system operates. Money is created out of debt in a fractional reserve system (that's the system we live under, if you didn't know). Also, the amount we owe on our money to the world and to the Fed is GREATER than the money supply. What does that mean, then? Paying off debts leads to contraction, and that leads to chaos in our society.

Would it not make more sense to have a sound money system where money doesn't equal debt? Perhaps a system where savings are promoted more than spending beyond your means?

My point being that this guy said Obama will usher in the Great Depression without giving any reasons that could have easily been applied to McCain as well. There was some sort of bias there, even if he wouldn't admit it.

I'd like to give that guy a call and ask him if he has the balls to say that we're going to hit a depression because, GUESS WHAT? Obama got elected. I'll bet you one of my famous pan-fried steaks that he'll downplay what he said on this program.

He was talking about Obama because it was obvious Obama was going to win. He's gone on record saying a Depression is still coming after Obama got elected, so I'll take one of those steaks. But seriously, once Obama makes the problem worse please remember this man and Ron Paul so you know where to turn when you want to get out of the Depression.

[maladroit]

"Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is wrong morally and economically."

- it's not nearly as wrong morally and economically as taking from the poor and giving to the rich in the form of deficit-causing tax cuts and bank bailouts

[JakeMartinez]

Interest rates are controlled by the Fed, not by the government. We have no say whatsoever in what the Fed does. And, if they did cause this by making interest lates too low, it wouldn't be the first time they created a financial crisis.

We let the free markets do what they want for most of 20 years. They don't regulate themselves. Greenspan, who shared the same idealistic philosophy as you do, admitted recently that he was wrong in deregulating the markets.

Banking interests own our government and have owned it since the establishment of the Federal Reserve. They've engineered their system so that they have us by the balls, and most people don't even care how bad the banks fuck us over. If Ron Paul HAD been elected, he would have been approached by these interests and either corrupted, or they would lobby against him in Congress.

The problems we're seeing now are systemic. Our system is designed to work in favor of banks (all money starts in a bank, and inevitably ends up in a bank). In that system, we can never be free of debt. Ever. And, as I said before, if we pay off our debts, we have no money supply.

If government doesn't interfere with the free markets, the government will fail. What else could it possibly do? Our military is already being marginalized by private security forces. Without government interference, the free markets will eventually take over as government, and that is not a particularly pleasant thought.

Oh, and one last thing, if the interest rates hadn't been so low, this crisis would have been a lot worse when it hit. Like I said, the system we live in operates on debt. Our money supply would have hit contraction by now if interest rates had been higher than they already were.

[JakeMartinez]

He was talking about Obama because it was obvious Obama was going to win. He's gone on record saying a Depression is still coming after Obama got elected, so I'll take one of those steaks. But seriously, once Obama makes the problem worse please remember this man and Ron Paul so you know where to turn when you want to get out of the Depression.

How do you want it?

[jonquest]

"Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is wrong morally and economically."

- it's not nearly as wrong morally and economically as taking from the poor and giving to the rich in the form of deficit-causing tax cuts and bank bailouts

Indeed bank bailouts are ridiculous, and Obama supports them. Tax cuts can't really cause a deficit. When people are given the power to do what they want with their power, the economy flourishes. We need lower taxes for the rich and the poor.

[jonquest]

Interest rates are controlled by the Fed, not by the government. We have no say whatsoever in what the Fed does. And, if they did cause this by making interest lates too low, it wouldn't be the first time they created a financial crisis.

I agree. We do not control the Fed, but Congress does have the power to get rid of the Fed. It was unconstitutional when they created it in the first place.

We let the free markets do what they want for most of 20 years. They don't regulate themselves. Greenspan, who shared the same idealistic philosophy as you do, admitted recently that he was wrong in deregulating the markets.

We have not had a free market the past 20 years. There have been regulations in place during this time. For example a piece of legislation that forced banks to give out loans to those who usually would not be able to get a loan was put into law in 1977 under the Carter administration. This caused many loans not to be paid back because they were given out to irresponsible people.

Banking interests own our government and have owned it since the establishment of the Federal Reserve. They've engineered their system so that they have us by the balls, and most people don't even care how bad the banks fuck us over. If Ron Paul HAD been elected, he would have been approached by these interests and either corrupted, or they would lobby against him in Congress.

Ron Paul has been in Congress for 20 years. He has been corrupted yet, and I don't think that would change if he became President. His whole economic stance is based in opposition to the central bankers.

The problems we're seeing now are systemic. Our system is designed to work in favor of banks (all money starts in a bank, and inevitably ends up in a bank). In that system, we can never be free of debt. Ever. And, as I said before, if we pay off our debts, we have no money supply.

I agree. This is why the system needs to be changed. It promotes debt and hurts savings. Also, the inflation is a tax on the middle class because their wages stay the same, but prices increase. We need a non-mass-inflationary currency.

If government doesn't interfere with the free markets, the government will fail. What else could it possibly do? Our military is already being marginalized by private security forces. Without government interference, the free markets will eventually take over as government, and that is not a particularly pleasant thought.

This isn't true. The military is being marginalized by private companies because George Bush is choosing to give them contracts. The free markets would take over the pricing of goods, but not the government. In many cases private institutions need to take over the public ones though. For example, the school system. Could you give an example of when a private company would take over a government institution and it would have a negative effect?

Oh, and one last thing, if the interest rates hadn't been so low, this crisis would have been a lot worse when it hit. Like I said, the system we live in operates on debt. Our money supply would have hit contraction by now if interest rates had been higher than they already were.

[/quote]

The problem we are having is inflation of prices because of too much money being created. How can we solve the problem of inflation with more inflation? We need to let the market decide interest rates.