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:

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

We've been doing it your way for the last 100 years...

...and now the world economy is collapsing. So, who is ridiculous?

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

The economy hit the wall

The economy hit the wall because the numbers finally came up "goose eggs". In a rapidly growing economy and working population, inefficiencies are less important because growth drives everything quickly upward DESPITE the hidden problems.

We are now effectively broke because of excessive, wasteful war spending and two party corruption combined with corporatism. It's the story of "When Fan Met $#*%". In this shrinking economy, efficiency is more important than ever and control over spending means life or death. Our population is not growing AND it's retiring. These combined factors spell disaster for the remaining population.

This doesn't make sense from an investment standpoint.

Why risk going to jail for an investment? No one would. They would sit on their money or keep it in banks. There's a job killer right there.

Santa Maria, Ca

Who said buying stocks is an investment? Its gambling

That's all buying stocks is: speculation and gambling. After we saw what happened in 2008, and what is going to happen very soon in the near future, why would anyone buy stocks as an "investment"?

As far as going to jail, people don't go to jail for investing, they go to jail because they are guilty of criminal activity. If stockholders own the company, they should be just as liable for the actions of executive management in a corporation as an employer is responsible for the actions of his/her employee in a sole proprietorship.

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

I daresay

your opinion demonstrates you have little real-world practical or business experience.


If you only knew!!

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

So fess up.

If that same company sells a trillion ovens that harm nobody

should you be rewarded with personal profit because you own stoke? It's called risk for a reason! Corporations are socialistic in nature gains and loses are distributed to all share holders. If you are a sole-proprietor and you make ovens you assume all gains and loses yourself. That is why a regular old small businessman has a hard time competing with a corporation. One man versus a mob is always hard. It is even harder when the corporations have larger pools of money to lobby congress to put some form of sanction (in the form of license or regulation or subsidy) in place that will punish the sole-proprietor or reward the corporations. The reason the corporations seek the sanction is because most sole-proprietorships over a long period of time smoke the corporation because they are more capitalistic in nature and their is no redistribution of lose or gain. The fact that the corporations even need to lobby for advantage proves the sole-proprietor (the individual/capitalism) is far more supperior to the corporation (the mob/socialism)

Sure, but the gains is limited

Sure, if you buy one hundred dollars worth of stock and the company perform you should receive the reward that your 100 dollars gained, not one penny more.
In the scenario of a sole proprietor, should the local bank who loaned him money for his endeavors be liable for his actions, should the laborer who works all week for pay be held liable. When a labor sells his service for future consideration, payment next week is just t hat, he is a stock holder. His liability is limited to the pay he is owed.

A marriage in the US is a type of corporate structure. If the husband borrows money the wife can be liable. If the husband murders the wife is not liable, unless she had a act in the murder. Because she has a joint bank account and can reap the rewards of the mans work does not make her liable for his crimes, unless she knowingly and willingly participates. Does the stock holder knowingly and intentionally participate in the crimes of the officers, no.

Your argument is better advocated if you rally against giving corporations more rights than persons. The problem is the federal government gives special treatment to corporations, limited liability is given to all as persons. Its not the fact there is limited liability, its the way they enforce it, selectively.

Our federal government used your arguments back when GM went bankrupt. They made the bond holders, the Indiana Teachers Pensions Trust Fund, liable for the losses of the company. I ask, is it right the teachers took a haircut to bail out the UAW and all those who owned GM stock ? Selective enforcement is the issue.

The law, at least it used to, says bond holders are first in line when bankruptcy occurs. Why.....they took the risk and exchanged security for profits. Bond holders make a lot less than stock holders when times are good, equity says they should receive the least amount of damages when times are bad. Why did the teachers pensions, bond holders, stand behind the stock holders, the UAW ?


I can understand the government bashing because they set the playing field as the Judge said. The fed is an obvious one.

Yet, the banksters did commit fraud in their contracts and had that immunity bill passed to offset these slight indiscretions lol

If there was no crime, why the immunity? ...as Keiser put it.

I do not agree with Keiser on the AGW issue but he is someone in the 'know' regarding the global economy.


Annoying dude

I love Peter, he's a monster debater, he never backs down, and ofcourse knows the economy like the back of his hand. He basically made the best arguments possible for each situation that was presented to him. The only part where I believed he dropped the ball a bit (btw I wouldn't have done half as good as he did) was when he didn't see the Adam Smith argument being set up. Remember that we follow austrian economists, they improved upon Smith's thoughts, we want even freer markets. That and how he didn't explain how unions negatively impact the economy. This was an awesome video, I'd love to see Peter go down there as much as possible, we all need to be there educating them on the real problems.

The problem with Peter's argument.

Peter Schiff always spins everything around as just the problem is: ..the government...the government...the government, and the Federal Reserve (which is not "the government" but a privately-owned, profiteering parasite which controls the government).

But the problem with this argument is, that even if you abolished the Federal Reserve tommorrow and cleaned house in Congress, what is there to prevent these same private capitalists and lobbyists from simply using their wealth to bribe public officials again, and re-create the same rigged system all over again?

Remember that President Andrew Jackson successfully abolished the Central Bank system in the 1830s (after a long fight), and doing that by itself did not ensure our economic independence and our future. The Robber Barons (who were private capitalists) like J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, etc. just used their wealth to (essentially) overthrow the government all over again, and become the invisible monarchy (money masters).

History tells us that great concentrations of private wealth will always use their money to corrupt governments (Democracies and Monarch's alike) such that they then become the real rulers of society (and we are their slaves). We go to Wars because of Mulitnational Corporations and Bankers desire to control World Resources -- not "the government".

The government is just the puppet not the master. It is the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Morgans, etc. (private individuals) who really run the whole show (and who co-opt the government using their wealth).

So Peter is wrong here. Not only should be government be chained down (by the Constitution), great private wealth must also be chained down by some type of regulatory paradigm to prevent Monopolies and concentrations of tyrannical private power from being developed.

"These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power.

Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for.

Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike."

--President Franklin D Roosevelt

Debbie's picture

Wow, that was fantastic!! Go Peter!!!

I love this guy. He speaks to the common person in language they can understand, He is very good at explaining things. I always learn a lot when I listen to him. I think it's so great to take advantage of the opportunity to mix with these OWS people and have some spirited discussions like this. I wish a lot more people were doing this.


Peter is contradicting himself

On the one hand, he tells these protesters that the problem is government, and that government should not be involved in any aspects of capitalism. Then, on the the other hand, he defends the existence of corporations, admitting that they allow owners of the corporations to make tons of money quickly, while shielding them from liabilities.

His blatant contradiction is so obvious here, I felt embarrassed for him. First of all, a corporation is a government created entity. It shields owners from being liable for their actions and from their responsibilities. Doesn't Ron Paul condemn the banker's bailouts because the banks should have been accountable for making poor choices? Why then shouldn't the same be applied to owners of corporations? Shouldn't they be liable for the poor choices they make? Peter admitted that corporations, as a government backed and created entity, allow people to get rich real quick without assuming the liabilities for their actions.

You can't have it both ways, Peter. Either you want government out of the markets and capitalism, or you don't.

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

I caught that too.

I caught that too. Corporations didn't always have the rights of personhood.

You are just wrong

Government didn't create corporations. Corps are something allowed by law.

Corporations, per se, are not "good" nor "bad". The way Corporation X is run may be "good" or "bad". That depends on the will of the shareholders of that corporation.

Like Peter explained, "Who could blame a Corp. for taking a bail out, (free money)?" The bad guys in this equation aren't the recipients, its the guys who made our money available to them! Corporations who have bought out our representation are the bad guys here, along with the representatives who have sold our trust to corporations and special interests.

Sure, poorly run organizations should fail. Like slow moving, tasty animals should be for predators! Evolution is cold, but serves a very necessary purpose. Because a Corp fails, it only means there will be many more willing to take over for that failed entity, like hyenas feeding on the corpse of a dead elephant (no political allusion here, though that has some meaning, too!)

Corporations (the legal entity) are there to shield investors from liabilities such as lawsuits from the performance of the corporation. In simplicity, if you were the CEO of a small corporation and it made a product that years later, was faulty, only the corporation should fail--not the individual who ran the corporation and that owner should not lose his/her personal comforts due to the failure of the corporation.

That is extremely simplified, I know. I just think you have completely missed the boat on the purpose for establishing a legal entity such as a corporation vs. owning a business solely.

Where in the Constitution does it allow for corporations?

Ron is a strict Constitutionalist. Where in the Constitution does it protect corporations the same way it protects an individual's rights/property/contracts? Why am I, as an individual, liable and held responsible for my actions, while a corporation is not? That is why people start corporations: they can shield their wealth from lawsuits and taxes, while creating millions more in profit rapidly.

In the state I live, I pay both Federal income tax, and state income tax. Now, if I start a business, and I want to form a corporation, I can start a Wyoming corporation, and since there is no state income tax in Wyoming, I can operate my business in my home state, while not paying any state income tax as a corporation. How is that fair? As a corporation I have deductions and write-offs that I do not have as a sole proprietor, or as an employee working for someone. How is that fair? Why are corporations given special rights, privileges, allowances and considerations that the individual American citizen is not? Can you please answer me that?

You get rid of corporations, along with keeping government out of capitalism, and you will reduce the magnitude of the problems we have with corruption, and small businesses would flourish. Excellent craftsmanship and higher wages would return to America!

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

The Commerce Clause allows it.

and the Equal Protection Clause protects property rights.

Have you actually READ the Constitution?

Please be specific, Try to avoid personal attacks

If you want to share a specific point, please do, but to try and insult me personally gives me a clue what grade in High School you dropped out of.

You seem to forget that we are facing a financial crisis. We can blame the government, but to not equally put the blame on the corrupt practices of corporations/ bankers is not being realistic.

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

Corruption in business has no effect when the hand of

government is involved.

In a free, competitive environment, inefficient businesses fail if internal corruption causes them to become uncompetitive. If regulations or favoritism (corporatism) allows them to exist despite these inefficiencies, you see where this is going....

As Peter Schiff noted, people are greedy, and there's nothing wrong with that, because in a competitive environment they are also fearful, and that fear keeps them responsive and efficient.

Its a Catch 22

The reason corporations get away with crime can be blamed on government, but it is the corporation's money who put the corrupt politicians in office. The corporations are today's "Tammany Hall". They control the lobbyist who control our government.

First of all, in being realistic, I realize that corporations are here to stay. Even if OWS burns this country down, corporations aren't going anywhere. But, what I see in the pursuit of liberty and freedom is an apparent contradiction. Ron Paul is educating Americans how we need to be responsible for ourselves, and that includes suffering the consequences of the poor choices we make. But, where a corporation is concerned, it can have "limited liability", and/or "no liability", even though the Supreme Court has ruled that a corporation is a "person". What "person" can have "no liability"?

So, what this means is that I can talk the talk, but I don't have to walk the walk. While I am speaking out of one side of my mouth about freedom, liberty and individual responsibility, I now can talk out of the other side of my mouth about every conceivable way I can protect my wealth, and not have to be responsible for my actions. I want to always find ways to be free of any accountability, because lets face it, being a liberty lover means making as much frickin' money as we can, and protecting our wealth at all costs, even using government help if needed to accomplish this goal.

If you don't see a contradiction with "limited liability" while advocating "liberty and freedom", just change the word "liability" with the word "responsibility". Can I claim to be a champion of individual rights and lover of freedom and liberty, while living a life in pursuit of "limited responsibility"?

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

Excellent point

I too cringed when I heard him say that. Overall, he did a really great job, but he sent a mixed signal with that comment. Maybe we can get him to comment (on his show or his youtube channel) either explaining his position better or realizing if there is a mistake and correcting it as needed.

Message to Peter:

Hey Peter, want to have a hit show online?

Do a "Libertarian vs. Progressive" show!

You sitting down with a progressive at a bar, drinking a beer and discussing a few subjects and current events.

I think this country needs this debate!

Peter Schiff rules.

Peter Schiff rules.


Those people are racist against rich people.

Great Videos

Love this stuff!

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana

Definition of Willfully Ignorant

Peter Schiff explains it to them. "You need to limit government."

They all agree. Then they say "That's why we're here."

Peter: You should be protesting in Washington because we need to limit government so perks can't be given to Wall Street.

OWS: We agree. That's why we're here.

That's the worst thing about the educated, progressive, liberals. They think they're so smart they can't open their eyes or ears to the truth. They say they hate the FDA or the bailouts or the wars, then they say "Democrats will fix it."

No, Peter used the space provided

by Occupy to educate a variety of Americans. Peter was part of Occupy. That's how it works. There is no Occupy gang. Occupy is an opportunity for us to come together and to show the ruling class we are pissed. Peter just showed you how much potential the Occupy space has. Use it. Oh and Peter, you are the part of 99%. This thing is just getting started and you may need us, your friends in the 99%.

Ron Paul on Occupy Wall Street:
“But I think that the majority of them think government is the problem and taxes are too high and they know that the Federal Reserve plays a role in this, which, of course, is something I agree with.”

What a lesson

This is how the country will be saved - people talking F2F with our peeps. Sharing knowledge and listening to each other.
He actually does listen and then can speak so clearly and concisely on the point.

Freaking awesome!!!

On the other hand it is sad to see many people who have no faith in themselves. They believe that only with govt force can "thier" needs be addressed.
Public Ed and atheism. I don't care which god, I hope everyone has a god of thier choice. We are not just a bio accident from primordial sludge. When people start believing this shit they stop believing in how special each us truly is and they start looking for handouts and govt force.

What an effort by PS.


Liberty = Responsibility

Camera Guy

The guy filming was mentioning how the "anti-capitalism" sentiment was a misconception. Said he saw lots of Ron Paul supporters there.

The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it