36 votes

Peter Schiff taking on OWS Face to Face, Watch here

This was yesterday, heres the link for the video..

Watch here! Its was great.. Peter was in the heart of the fire!

Here is part 2:




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yes it does work like that in

Yes it does work like that in a free market. The fact that owners of the corporation are not liable, is calculated into the interest rate which bond or share holders receive. Free market is about free choices, and if individuals decide to invest in a corporation, they do it at their own risk.

Agree...

Corporate person-hood is, in my opinion, a big part of the problem.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Without corporate personhood

You wouldn't be able to sue a corporation. A corporation wouldn't be able to own property either.

The problem isn't corporate personhood, the problem is how corporations can be used as a legal shield.

Corporate personhood is a VERY VERY old concept, I think even older than the US itself. You're attacking the wrong thing.

Sorry, but that's not true. Corporations were not people in 1776

Corporations were originally chartered by the government for limited durations and limited purposes.

Our Founders were very concerned about corporations and corporate power because of their experiences of how King George III cared more about the bottom line of the corporations like the East India Company tea monopoly than he did the colonists.

Although the strict supervision of corporations has been much relaxed over time, to this day they still only exist because someone filed paperwork with and pays fees to the government that sanctions it to exist. Thus, corporations ARE creations of government.

Although corporations have managed to endear themselves to capitalists because of the benefits they do have in terms of efficiently organizing capital, managing labor and encouraging creativity and risk-taking (because of their liability shield), corporate personhood is still a problem because the rights corporations claim as people go beyond just the legal fiction of personhood to sue and be sued in our courts. Corporate personhood post-Citizens United pretends that corporations are endowed by our Creator with natural rights like us human beings. It pretends that corporations have a First Amendment right that real people have yet these were not the people the Framers had in mind at the time of the drafting of "We the People"

Now that's not the only problem with business law and how it has messed up our legal system. It used to be that business people had to make a choice. If you want low taxes, don't incorporate and operate as a partnership or sole proprietorship. If you want liability protection for your personal assets, incorporate your business.

Now corporate lawyers have blurred all the lines between those things with the invention of limited liability and you have corporations calling for zero percent taxes at the same time they clog up our federal courts and demand endless government resources when it comes to securing intellectual property or sending our military all over the world to make foreign markets safe for American corporations to do business there.

My understanding...

I believe that the 1% refers to the richest 1% of people in this country. Are you sure that he isn't in that 1%?

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

I must say...

...I rather enjoyed that! I loved the sign. To do something like THAT...., That's balls! /bow @ Peter Schiff

The conversations were for the most part very cordial and respectful. Hearing several folks say that the Marxists / Anti-Capitalists are an extreme few and a minority and seeing that raise of hands on "Who likes Capitalism?" was reassuring to concerns I hold; However one must balance that with the fact that with Peter Schiff just being there, naturally Ron Paul supporters will as well en mass. Ergo, that would not have been the same response to the same question at previous Occupy gatherings as shown on Youtube.

I don't know that he was necessarily changing anyone's mind, but he certainly had an educational influence at that moment in moving the discussion forward, he got peoples gears turning, and found certain areas of agreement, once defined properly, and just defining the debate properly was a huge hurtle for most he talked to, and most still refused to cede to the primary claim that the attention is focused at the wrong creature. That it should properly be focused at the FED and our Government.

That was great I only wish....

that he would go down there during the
day with a good camera and mic so we can
here all the comments.
This is a great way to wake these folks up.

Peter Schiff is doing an awesome job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Peter Schiff is doing an awesome job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow Schiff is amazing!

Great job.

NO MORE LIES. Ron Paul 2012.

That did take some balls...

But really in the end these people were easy pickin's. All they know is "bash the rich".

If you take money (which in turn buys capital which is the means of production) from productive people and you give it to unproductive people... pretty soon you have NO productive people... and NO capital.

In a true free market, the housing bubble would've never happened. In a free market the Fed wouldn't be in control of the interest rates... the bank would set it's own rates based on RISK. In a free market the Congress wouldn't control the qualifications required to get a home loan... the bank would set it's own qualifications based on RISK. In a free market the bank wouldn't be able to sell it's loans into a secondary market without scrutiny because of a promise of government backing... the bank would have to prove the loan is a viable loan and the seller would decide to buy it based on RISK. The Fed, the Congress and Freddie and Fannie took ALL the RISK out of making a mortgage loan. In a real free market there would always be risk and reward that would have to be considered before making a decision.

These people think that the government taking money from the rich in order to "spread it around" is the solution. You could take 100% of the money from all the people making over $500,000/year and it still wouldn't come close to paying for our government. ALL of the income taxes collected in this country go to pay the interest on the debt. It doesn't help to provide anyone a safety net...except the banksters.

SteveMT's picture

I commend Peter Schiff for having the guts to go down there.

He engaged these people not knowing what would happen, thinking back to the Geraldo fiasco. They had an excellent exchange of ideas, and there was mutual respect shown for each of their positions.

Good job Peter.

i recommend going there with

i recommend going there with signs, and having casual conversations one on one rather. peter is kind of a cult of personality figure with a radio show, so i see why he took the mic and camera with him, but i recommend an approach a little more inviting.

Go, go, go Peter! Ya Hooo!

A master at work. Did you see how the irrate people were slowly subdued and MADE TO THINK?! They had some excellent points, which he was able to say "yes, but..." and show them the path they were on, and redirect them to an better understanding.

What if we went down to these protests with signs that said

"I am the 99 and 1/2%,I have the same amount of money as you, but I know the real cause of all of this.". Add the Peter Schiff touch of "Let's talk", and you are golden. Occupy, Occupy Wallstreet, they are waiting for you and me.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

I am going to do it.

I have been invited, to spend the night.....
Rob and i started the end the fed movement here,
he wants me to join them....
this should be fun, think there will be any hot chicks?
OK, mebbe not......

What if we went down to these protests with signs that said

"I am the 99 and 1/2%,I have the same amount of money as you, but I know the real cause of all of this.". Add the Peter Schiff touch of "Let's talk", and you are golden. Occupy, Occupy Wallstreet, they are waiting for you and me.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

What if we went down to these protests with signs that said

"I am the 99 and 1/2%,I have the same amount of money as you, but I know the real cause of all of this.". Add the Peter Schiff touch of "Let's talk", and you are golden. Occupy, Occupy Wallstreet, they are waiting for you and me.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

What if we went down to these protests with signs that said

"I am the 99 and 1/2%,I have the same amount of money as you, but I know the real cause of all of this.". Add the Peter Schiff touch of "Let's talk", and you are golden. Occupy, Occupy Wallstreet, they are waiting for you and me.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

What if we went down to these protests with signs that said

"I am the 99 and 1/2%,I have the same amount of money as you, but I know the real cause of all of this.". Add the Peter Schiff touch of "Let's talk", and you are golden. Occupy, Occupy Wallstreet, they are waiting for you and me.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Corporations Would Exist Without State Charters

No need to cringe. Peter is right. There is no aspect of the corporate form that could not be duplicated via private contractual agreement, so it is a mistake to say corporations are somehow creatures of government. This is an appealing argument, because it seems to make us kind of chic leftists, but it is false.

Stephan Kinsella has dealt with this: http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2011/10/18/corporate-pers...

Kinsella's arguments are flawed

She asks the question: "Why would a shareholder be liable for actions of some employee?"

I ask: "Why should employers be liable for the actions of their employees?"

If her reasoning is to hold up, where she maintains that stockholders shouldn't be liable for the actions of an employee, then in the same vein I declare: employers shouldn't be liable for the actions of their employees. And yet, they are.

Why would someone who is a Libertarian, want to rid themselves of being responsible and liable for their actions? I thought being a Libertarian meant, as an individual, being responsible for our actions, and suffering the consequences of our poor decisions. A corporation is a government created "gimmick" to allow people to hide their wealth from lawsuits and from paying taxes. If the owners of a company are not to be held responsible for their employees actions, then an employer of a sole-proprietorship shouldn't be liable as well. You can't have a government enforced, double standard, in a free market economy.

"I support the Declaration of Independence and I interpret the Constitution."

the problem with kinsella's

the problem with kinsella's arguments here is he addresses only the status of firms within a view of a market that doesn't exist. today, the state backs those contracts and arbitration. it is semantics to compare free market incorporation with state incorporation.

Its not the corporation that is the problem

It is the licensing of anything that is a problem. The ability to license is the ability to give and take away. They can sanction (reward you) for doing what they want or they can sanction (penalize you) for doing what they don't want. They can gain favor by subsidizing your earnings or your loses. When you let a third party enter into any two party contract the third party will always corrupt the contract towards one side or the other. The third party will always pick the side that benefits itself the most and both sides will always vie for the third parties power of sanction. Take away the governments ability to license (pick winners and losers) and you have won half the battle to freedom.

My issue would be with the

My issue would be with the limited liability aspect. You can't just contract away negligence. I see that the linked article covers this, so I'll be sure to give it a read later to better understand the arguments.

limited liability.....

This idea the government grants the special privilege of limited liability is a two way street.
In the real world it is selectively enforced. It is used as a tool to plan the economy, not administer justice.

When free market people talk about de-regulation one must ask - does that mean doing away with corporate welfare ?

Consider this - you own stock in a big company, call it an instrument in your retirement portfolio. How much liability should you have from the products the company you invested in made? If you invest in GE and they make an oven that explodes and kills grandma, should you be punished with personal liability because you own stock ?
Should your pension plan be held liable because they own bonds ?

What would proper liability look like ?

If you own stock, you should be liable!

LocalBoy, you asked:

"Consider this - you own stock in a big company, call it an instrument in your retirement portfolio. How much liability should you have from the products the company you invested in made? If you invest in GE and they make an oven that explodes and kills grandma, should you be punished with personal liability because you own stock ?
Should your pension plan be held liable because they own bonds ?

What would proper liability look like ?"

Yes, if a person owns stock, which is ownership in a company, they should be liable and held accountable for the company's actions. If not, why not?

Stockholders want their stocks to go up in value. They put pressure on the Chairman of the Board to do whatever it takes to make that stock go up. Under pressure, a Chairman of the Board will make rash decisions that could result in an inferior product being produced (like an oven blowing up), or cooking the books, so the stocks will have a higher value. The stockholders make the demands, it only stands to reason that they should be held accountable when the Chairman of the Board (who they elected to be in control) messes up.

If you held stockholders liable for the company's actions, people would be very careful in which stocks they choose. They would want to check the company's history of accidents, and how the company treats its employees. Is the company honest in all its dealings. Does it cheat on its taxes? Is the product of the highest quality, so there will be no injuries or deaths from faulty products? The potential stockholder would want to make sure that the company isn't harming the environment, so there would be no lawsuits for polluting.

So, yes, in answer to your question, stockholders should be 100% liable for the company's actions. In this way, you wouldn't need government regulations; the stockholders would do a much better job of "regulating"!

"I support the Declaration of Independence and I interpret the Constitution."

Limited liability

In our current system the liability of the stock holder is limited to the money he spent on the stock, including any and all gains.
If you invest 100 dollars in XYZ stock your liability is limited to 100 dollars. In your scenario the liability for the stock holder would be infinite. An investment of 100 dollars could destroy a lifetime of work....

When you invest 100 dollars the only reward you can get is limited to the 100 dollars invested, proportionately.

A stock holder is the same as a bank loan in that it gives capital in exchange for future considerations. If your bank loans your deposits to XYZ and they act with malice in the market place should you be liable, should your bank be liable ?

Board members have more liability than stock holders, officers have more liability than stock holders. Board members and officers CAN be held liable for criminal activities, stock holders cannot. Why, because stock holders are limited in their ability to change policy.

The Key word is equity - a persons risk is relevant to their reward.

As a tax payer you are a stock holder in the public schools, should the tax payer be held liable.

As a participant in the Social Security system each person is a stock holder, should the stock holder be liable for the theft of the trust fund ?

My view - your argument is with board members and officers, not stock holders. Corporate governance is your argument, or at least the one with the most traction.

So then all Enron

So then all Enron shareholders should have been sent to prison? Makes no sence.

It does make sense

If Enron's shareholders faced the repercussions, such as imprisonment, for the illegal activities committed by executive management, the shareholders, and not the government, would have more closely "regulated" Enron. The shareholders would have more closely scrutinized every detail of Enron's activities to make sure that the company was running honestly and ethically. And why shouldn't they? It's their investment!

If I owned stock in a processing plant, say, Tyson Foods, and I could be held accountable and go to prison for the deaths of customers who died from processed chicken that contained salmonella, wouldn't I personally check out Tyson Foods processing plant to make sure that their operation was a clean operation? If I was facing the possibility of prison for the death of a customer eating diseased chicken, I guarantee you that I would do a much better job of regulating Tyson Foods than any government could do!

Any investor should pay very close attention to his/her investment. If not, then Ben Franklin's proverb can apply to them :"A fool and his money are soon parted."

Please, read this excellent three and a half page essay on the "The History of The Corporation" to see what monsters corporations have become.

http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/dg/s2r1.pdf

"I support the Declaration of Independence and I interpret the Constitution."

Business of any kind would be an impossibility

under your scenario. After two weeks, every company in America would be dissolved and there would be no such thing as "employment". Ridiculous.