110 votes

Peter Schiff on CNN

I have no idea why CNN decided to bring Peter Schiff on. But he actually gets to argue with some of the Keynesians like Jeffery Sachs.

Here's the link:


Comment viewing options

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


Yep, that's kind of representative of CNN's audience.

Regarding fascism, the

Regarding fascism, the process normally starts through governmental coercion, but then becomes cooperative as corporations profit from governments funded by taxpayers. Notice the rising revenue for AT&T from this excerpt from an article in the NY Times by Eric Lichtblau entitled "Wireless Firms Are Flooded by Requests to Aid Surveillance" and published July 8, 2012:

"The surging use of cell surveillance was also reflected in the bills the wireless carriers reported sending to law enforcement agencies to cover their costs in some of the tracking operations. AT&T, for one, said it collected $8.3 million last year compared with $2.8 million in 2007, and other carriers reported similar increases in billings."

I'm sorry but

I'm sorry but I don't see things the same way as most of you. When I watch this video I see Peter Schiff being just as much of a shill as these other four actors. It becomes pretty obvious when you hear Peter say Romney is the answer to these problems. While Peter's argument is sound he uses the left right tactic to sell that argument and those who are wise enough know there is no difference between the two party systems as they are both controlled by the same group. Peter Schiff wants you to believe they are not. Just like Peter Schiff wants you to believe there are only two choices for president, Romney and Obama which he expressed over and over again in his interview with Rand Paul, which isn't the case at all as there are other candidates to choose from other than these two establishment owned choices. But Peter doesn't want people to think this, he only wants them to believe their only choice is Romney or Obama, when these two choices aren't a choice at all if your arguing the case Peter is making. In my opinion Peter is trying to sell out those who believe in his argument, by trying to convince them they need to look to the corrupt two party system for answers, when the corrupt two party system are the ones who brought you these problems to begin with.

Romney's the answer? That's what Peter wants us to believe? I'm sorry but I'm not as gullible as Peter would like me to be. I don't even believe Peter believes his own advice. I think he only misleads the public because he sold out to the establishment he's arguing against. That's my opinion.

I Will Say This

Peter was faster to give up on Ron Paul's chances than even Rand was. Pretty much the day after Santorum dropped out, Peter said (paraphrasing) "that pretty much clinches it for Romney". Unfortunately, it does seem like Romney is going to win the nomination but like almost everyone here, I'm still hoping against hope that Ron Paul can somehow pull off a miracle.

I also agree w/ your point, by the way, that Peter seems to favor Romney over Obama. In Peter's defense he has said that he really doesn't like Romney but he thinks Obama is that awful that he would consider voting for Romney. He said that to Gary Johnson yesterday actually. He said that he would vote for GJ if either A) GJ had a shot to win the overall election ...or... B) Connecticut was a done deal anyway (e.g. pro-Obama). He said if it's a close race and his vote could help sway the winner, though, that he'd vote for Romney.

It's funny to me because Peter taught me so much about economics, liberty, Ron Paul, the constitution, etc. Yet there are times I think he actually might be a little bit naive about the overall system. I don't think Romney offers us anything - not even a repeal of Obamacare. If there's going to be any real change, Ron Paul is our guy. Gary Johnson is a good 2nd option but he's not ideologically pure like Dr. Paul. He's also nowhere near as persuasive and can't rally support anywhere close to the way Dr. Paul can.

I definitely do NOT want this post to come off as a shot against Peter Schiff though. I am a HUGE fan of Mr. Schiff and, honestly, I think he would be the ideal heir-apparent to Ron Paul in the liberty movement. He has said that he is leaving the door open on politics going forward so that's extremely encouraging to hear. But I don't think that politics is something that he really wants to do (but I think he would do it).

Someone obviously didn't watch the video

Not once did Peter Schiff say Romney, nor the two-party system, is the answer. Comments like this might work to throw off some people on youtube, but not on the dailypaul :)

"Member for 5 hours 40 min"
... alas a new troll has joined our ranks

You didn't listen very well.

Try again.

Free includes debt-free!

Try again? Okay.....

This is Peter Schiff and I quote "I think it gives you more of a reason to support Romney", in regards to the Supreme Court ruling.

You don't like the Supreme Court ruling, SUPPORT ROMNEY, that's Peter Schiff's advice to the public as to what to do to resolve this problem. Now how many people here honestly believe that, that Romney is the answer to this problem of Obamacare, and will make things all better.

And what does Peter base his opinion on, that Romney would be the answer to this problem, was it the empty campaign promises this Romneycare candidate tells the gullible saps who watch propaganda news channels such as this one. I guess so since Peter didn't seem to mention any other reason why anyone should chose this worthless candidate.

There's nothing wrong with his answer

There's nothing wrong with his answer if you look at it in context... If you notice the question was:

"Do you think this will energize the tea party"

You're insinuating he just endorsed Romney which leaves me to believe that either you're trolling or your deductive reasoning skills are off

After watching this vid I

After watching this vid I went ahead and "liked" Peter Schiff's page on facebook and left a nice lil comment

This was an awesome debate, and by awesome I mean he made them all look like morons

Peter Schiff is talking to 3 communists.

All I hear from those three mouths were "i'm a communist." This is incredible! American need to wake up and follow the constitution. That will solve our problems...not the three mindless machine surrogates that CNN puts on.

Why do we have a constitution anyway? For good look? I'm so sick and tired of seeing people so dumb and stupid.

We need to get rid of Central Planning completely. That is what the communist did - and it won't work.




Liberal insanity on display.....

Peter Schiff did an outstanding job rebuking these nutcases! He deserves a lot of credit.

Vanden Heuvel is a complete mental case..... and I thought Pelosi was crazy!

I did the Sam Kinison scream

Around the 9:05 minute mark, at the part when the host said "The countries that have their own Central Banks, meaning they have the ability to print money, none of these countries have any problem borrowing money." Well, no sh*t, Sherlock!

Here's what I got out of this ...

Panel of Speakers claim government authority to own us, what we do, etc... government is the solution to all our woes...

Peter Schiff, the lone voice of REASON!!! Free Markets Free Markets Free Markets...

That pretty much sums it up

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

couldn't even watch the whole thing

3 against one, how could there possibly be any balanced and meaningful discussion. Interestingly the will of the people is about opposite numbers with 3-1 against the mandate.


These guys are ridiculous. How can making everybody buy insurance lessen the block between patient and provider? Insurance companies are the main block between patient and provider. And CNN is a joke for having one of the co-authors of the bill try to have a non-biased debate over healthcare. Plus talking about focusing on having full employment and not worrying about deficits. I could go on for days about how hearing this interview makes me sick! Peter was on fire though.

CNN so unbiased: 4 Keynesians

CNN so unbiased: 4 Keynesians vs. 1 free market Austrian. This is the idea of "fairness" personified.

Because the majority of

Because the majority of economists are Keynesian? They probably should have had a monetarist and a classical dude on there as well, though...

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

And a majority of those in

And a majority of those in Germany in the 30s and 40s were Nazis it doesn't mean that having 4 Nazis and one Anti-Nazi in a debate made it a fair one based on the political make up of the time and place.


The only thing worse than state worshiping trolls are smug state worshiping trolls. All three of those morons fit the latter definitions.

"Do right and risk the consequences”
― Sam Houston

Holy Crap - what world do these people live in?

Healthcare is better is Europe??
Health care costs have gone down??
We are in a recovery??
Having a fed that can just print money is wonderful??

That lady is so creepy - reminds me of that woman in that movie Misery.

Healthcare is far superior in

Healthcare is far superior in many European countries...

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Based upon what?

I think you are confusing health access with health care.

Are you saying the actual ability to "fix" a broken person in better in Europe?

I think the here vs Europe is far too broad. Perhaps we are spoiled here in CT - we have several incredible hospitals here - and if you go to the Boston/NY areas you have access to even more. We have multiple helicopters(Life Star) that are used in cases where time is absolutely critical and either traffic would prevent an ambulance or the need to get you to a special care hospital requires the speed of the helicopter.

Did that Dippy Broad

Actually say that being a WOMAN was no longer a pre-existing condition? Did she REALLY? Where did they dig up this moron?


Schiff makes some good

Schiff makes some good points, but I would like him to prove how heavy regulations hurt his business. Yes, if the government says "you can't cheat people", it is a regulation that prevents you from scamming people and making money, but that regulation SHOULD exist.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

as BmoreBrawler indicated

Regulations force Peter to hire dozens of compliance employees to make sure everything is going according to government regulations. If he messes up in the slightest, the SEC, FINRA, or whoever can come in and fine him, or try him in court for something, or a client can sue him because he didn't follow some regulation. And for what? Because he didn't file a SAR when it's obviously clear nothing malicious is going on? So what...All of this costs Peter money. He has to hire not only a whole compliance department, but he also has to hire individuals to just do specific jobs as required by regulations. It's a vicious cycle. The regulation is the market...that's all that is needed...not government.

A regulation doesn't prevent businesses from scamming people and making money. Look at Bernie Madoff...all those regulations didn't stop him from running the largest ponzi scheme known to man. Or look at all the businesses that failed and helped cause the economic collapse due to government policy and regulations that allowed businesses to do acts and take risks that they wouldn't have otherwise taken if the market was their regulator.

When you don't have government all up in your business, you save money due to compliance costs and you're more accountable to your actions. The ability to fail (absent government policy and regulations) in itself is a great regulator. No one wants their business to go under, so you take calculated risks that will most likely give you profits. Will there still be scammers? Absolutely, but as I said, has government regulations really stopped scammers and fraudsters? Nope...not one bit. I deal with fraud daily.

If you listened to Peter's radio show, you would hear all about his compliance costs/issues all the time. This includes government regulations on requiring him to own and only operate out of offices, licensing requirements, requirements to have handicap accessible bathrooms/offices, regulations for the office environment itself, new healthcare regulations, businesses required to offer "free" birth control...you name it. It all costs money...it hurts his business.

It hurts his business by cutting into his profits, which means less savings and less capital, which then means less growth and less jobs. It forces Peter to not grow past a certain point or else new regulations due to company size will kick in. This is how it hurts his business and hurts the people (you and me) in general.

"No one wants their business

"No one wants their business to go under, so you take calculated risks that will most likely give you profits."

Only with privately owned companies, where your own capital is at risk. Not the case with publically owned ones.

"Absolutely, but as I said, has government regulations really stopped scammers and fraudsters? Nope...not one bit. I deal with fraud daily."

It is all relative.

Schiff does work in one of the more regulated sectors of the economy, because, well, let us face, it, his sector is one where a lot of fraud goes on.

But look at something like McDonalds; they estimate that if you take employees who earn less than 80,000/year, wages, payroll contributions, state and federal mandated training, safety regulations, office costs, etc., cost the company 28,000/worker! Mandated healthcare costs would have added 2,000/worker on estimate; that is a salary of 14.50/hour. That's nothing; if you can't afford that much for your employees, you shouldn't be opening a business. Especially since some of those "regulations" you would need to have anyway. You need to have liability insurance, training for your employees; you need to heat the building and have clean bathrooms, etc.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

even with public companies

you still face the same situation...you're responsible to your shareholders. Do you want to come back and report to them that you squandered all their investments??? No!! Publically, you're risking someone elses money and are still held accountable without regulations. You face the risk of losing your position, of losing your own money, others money, lawsuits, criminal charges, etc. All without regulation. You can be fired without any sort of benefit and to the damage of your career for life. There are plenty of free-market regulators. Stop thinking within this prism that somehow regulations are good. The country survived without all these types of regulations for years. Within 100 years we surpassed countries economically that had been well founded for hundreds of years. Why??? freedom and no regulations.

And if it's all relative then why have the regulations??? If they do and don't stop fraudulent activity, then the same things applies to free-market regulations...they do and don't stop fraudulent activity. It's all relative. How many do either stop? I guess we'll never known, either way, crime will still exist and the purpose of the regulation that you seem so eager to support (scamming/fraud) is to stop it from occuring, which it obviously doesn't stop it from occuring no matter what. So why have it? In fact, we've had some of the worst cases ever WITH regulation and due to government policy. Government regulation is not a guarantee, but admittedly, neither is the free-market, but at least with the free-market you free up much more resources and capital due to a lack of regulation that results in positive economic activity for jobs, profits, etc.

With regulation, you bind people that could have maybe opened a business or whatever from ever entering the market and thus the government loses more revenue and the people are further robbed of some benefit that frees up even more resources for other entreprenuerial activity, which leads to jobs. However, if the regulation exists, it just keeps people stuck and resources are basically jailed up and do not benefit anyone.

And Schiff's sector experiences more fraud due to government policy and regulation. If the banking/financial industry were left up to free-market regulators. It would be much more under control. Shoot...the government is the one who allows banks to practice fractional reserve banking. So as long as a bank as 10% of their total deposits on hand, that bank is "ok." Except this practice leads to the business cycle and collaps and bank runs. This is government regulation gone awry that basically leads to criminal and fraudulent activity. You expect the bank to have your money...well when they loan 90% of your deposits out without your permission and you go to get your money during a bank run, well...they committed government sanctioned theft through worthless regulations that allowed it.

Regulations also prevent the enforcement of contract rights and allow a lot of theses companies that you would freely choose to associate with basically get away with murder and do not face repercussions. In fact, many are just forgiven and continue to do the same things after they pay a fine or whatever. If there were no regulations, contracts could be enforced and individuals could be held criminally liable for failing to uphold their end of an agreement. Just look at this whole financial crisis! Look how many companies got away with financial murder??? How many companies went under? Not nearly as many as there shoul have been, in fact, the government helped these people out despite all their risky/criminally negligent/regulation violating behavior. In fact, a lot of these financial companies help write the regulations in a way to benefit them so they regulate out competitors and aren't accountable to you and me (the client), but only to the government (for the most part). That way, they can do this or that and just get away with a fine and and carry on with life.

In a free-market, you think these companies would have done such risky things? Do you think if they had they would still be around? No.

Government policy resulted in risky behavior that results in more regulation and burdens the economy even more. That has always been how it goes: the Fed creates a business cycle, the bubble bursts, the scapegoat is the financial or some other sector, regulations are emplaced to "prevent" what just happend, and those regulations are generally written by the companies they affect. It's all political slight of hand. Except, the problem was never the companies, it was government policy/regulation that created the problem from the get-go. And what's the answer? More regulation that regulates out competitors so they can be the only man in town and get away with that much more...so stupid. Thank you government regulation.

And I really think you need to look at minimum wage policy. McDonald's probably would pay it's employees more if they didn't have to pay so much crap on top of hiring employees. Another problem with regulation. But even so...do you really think any McDonald's employee deserves $14.50 an hour? Don't be ridiculous...I didn't make that much working at John's Hopkins a few years ago (I made 50 cents less). And if that's the way you feel, let's just make minimum wage $14.50 and then see how many jobs go disappearing from the US and how many businesses and McDonald's close.

Also, half those things didn't exist when McDonald's started and yet it thrived....so thank the US government for making employees so expensive to hire through regulation. Thank you. That's the policy you want. You want employees to be as expensive as possible and you want regulations that make running a business inherently expensive. Good job Dr. No.

You don't "need" those things. I can't express it enough...companies thrived and provided superior stuff and services for less cost before regulation.

All regulation does is make a standard for you to avoid getting fined or fired. "hey, i met the regulations...it's not my fault...I did what I'm supposed to. I'm not responsible." People spend more time trying to be compliant it steals resources from treating and taking care of the client. People do just enough to not get fired, because as long as you meet that standard, so what?!?

All I can say is...you're flat out wrong on all this stuff. Just because it all sounds good doesn't mean it is good. You're attitude is the same type of drive the brings about gun bans or more. "Well it's good to not have guns, because people won't get killed by them." Meanwhile, the black market for guns thrive and criminals take part in all the more violent crime. Did government regulation stop gun violence? Not one bit. Or you're like, "it's good to have healthcare for all, because everyone will be taken care." Ok...well you'll see real soon, especially if you listen to Schiff, how this healthcare stuff will turn out. Many of the policies/regulation that are wrong with this country were started to "protect" people and were considered "good" and "just" and "right." Look where we're at now? It hasn't stopped crap and has only made things worse. You're paving a road to hell with your good intentions of regulations to prevent scamming and fraud. It doesn't work...it just makes it harder to free up resources for future projects.

I'm surprised you even support Ron Paul with this "we need regulations" attitude. You don't really believe in the free-market...just say it. We're waiting for you to just come clean...just say "yes" Dr. No...

Only Effective Regulation

It is simple. The only regulation that is effective is failure. Allow businesses to fail and free markets to operate without government interference. Just think of some of the businesses that would not be around: JPM, BofA, Goldman, Citi, Monsanto, maybe ever some of the big oil companies since it is one of the most heavily subsidized industry in the US.

Two suggestions...

Think or imagine or find an old video of any American City 1912. It busy, its bustling activity, free trade is happening. Now think, or imagine or find an current video of the same American City in 2012. Its not busy, its not bustling with activity, and only heavily regulated/licensed trade is slowly happening.

Next, try opening up a day care business, try opening up a shoe manufacturing plant, try opening up a new cookie-cracker company. REGULATIONS. The barriers to entry will be very high.

I agree with you that private property rights must be better protected, that fraud and tort law must be in place, or there is no Free Trade... but what we have is far far beyond just that.

Here is the best example that I have. It requires your imagination. Perhaps if you are good at graphics, you can make it one day. Ok bare with my description of the US economy. Get a Pencil and Paper.

At the top of the Paper draw a rectangle box, call it the govt.

At the bottom of the Paper draw lots of people stick figures, you know a circle for a head and stick arms and legs. Now draw a long rectangle around the people, call the box THE FREE MARKET

So, we have THE GOVT on top and THE FREE MARKET on the bottom.

Next, start on the lower right side of the FREE MARKET box and draw a semi circle line that curves or bellies out and then goes up to THE GOVT box. Put an arrow sign pointing to that direction of THE GOVT. Now label that line, "TAXES". So taxes flows up to govt.

Now, from THE GOVT box, draw a semi circle down to THE FREE MARKET Box and put an arrow pointing to it. Label that "Services" so that services flow from govt to people in The Free Market.

There. THERE IT IS. Keep that simple but correct MODEL of the Economy always and firmly in your head. When you watch shows like this and listen to Peter Schiff, it is this model that is inside his head.

Hence, when the govt takes more in taxes, Peter is saying that yes, services do increase to the People in the Free Market, but it 'distorts' the economy and its a aggregate loss of wealth as a whole. a) The people loosing tax money may not be the ones getting the spending, though often it is, and most of all b) for every 0ne hundred dollars in tax taken out of the free market, the govt spends only $20 dollars of it in Services; the govt feeds on the $80 dollars and grows bigger.

Now, lets add to this MODEL some deficit financing. In the middle, draw two lines going up and down between THE GOVT box and THE FREE MARKET BOX. Put an arrow pointing up and one pointing down. Hence, something flows up one one line to the Govt, and something flows down to the FREE MARKET.

Label the line flowing up from THE FREE MARKET to the GOVT as $$Cash.

Label the line flowing down from the GOVT to the Free Market as T-Bills/T-Bonds.

So lets recap; now we have $100 in taxes going up to the Govt, yet from the Govt to the Free Market we have only $20 in Services. Yet we know that the government actually spends MORE than it takes in in taxes. So how does it do that? Answer, people send in cash for T-Bills and T-Bonds. So besides taxes taking cash out of the Free Market, still more Cash is taken out. And people give it up for T-Bills/T-Bonds because they are an easy trade-able item that pays an interest rate. (why not give the govt your $100,000 and earn 6% for example, rather than RISK your money building a new shoe factory and earn MAYBE 9%??) So you avoid the complications and risk of building a shoe factory, or cracker-cookie company or day care chain because its easier to just take the T-Bill rate. Risk and innovation and "new jobs" are thus drained out of the economy as Govt needs more Deficit Financing. Govt's borrowing 'crowds out' private sector investments.

We could continue adding to this basic Model. We can add yet another box on top or above the GOVT rectangle box. Call this new box, THE FED. It buys Govt debt and hands the govt new money to pay its operations.

That is enough for now. I hope you do take the time to draw this out. Its a very simple but helpful MODEL of the economy.


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Being honest and not scamming

Being honest and not scamming people is just a virtue. It has nothing to do with the government.

A business and its clients are bound to each other by some kind of contract. Scamming people is by definition a violation of that contract and the case can be brought to an independent court, which will finally make a judgement. There is absolutely no need for the government, here.

If you want to argue for understandable and customer-friendly contracts, thats another thing, but this can also be solved by the free market. For example, there could be special insurances who develop standards for contracts and assure that there aren't any loopholes in them. If you make a contract then, it is defined in the first place under which insurance's rules the contract is made and also the risk for undetected loopholes could be taken by the insurance.