37 votes

Peter Schiff On Russell Brand

Peter Schiff: "People can be very smart and very dumb at the same time"


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

We should be talking about the non aggression

principal..... If free men and women want to voluntary trade items (money/goods) and or services etc for what they feel is equal value then they should do so in a free society

If free men and women want to set up communities where people don't want to use money, and simply want to contribute labour (or nothing lol) in to communal projects ie farms, and they do it without the use of force/aggression and do not force participation etc.... then they should be free to do so.

Currently we are not FREE, so neither of the above are possible.

The goal is the non aggression people, not bickering about what money is. Government is nothing more then an excuse for sociopath to use force and control others. I personally believe once people reach this "evolution" isms no longer matter.

Russell Brand "Health Insurance is Free"

I remember a few years back watching the 2008 MTV Mucic Awards where Russell Brand was the host telling everyone to vote for Obama.

He actually said the following: "What's wrong with you in America? In England, our health insurance is free!"


Author of Buy Gold and Silver Safely
Next book: Illusions of Wealth - due out soon
Also writing book We the Serfs!

Russell Brand is very confused indeed.

I don't understand how claiming what we are now getting is in any way 'Progressive' toward what they have in England. In America, we have always needed to pay for our health care individually and out of our own earnings. Now it is we need to pay for our own health care individually and out of our own earnings. If there is at all any change it simply is that the SCOTUS has claimed that paying for insurance is now a tax. Yet if that is to be at all seen to be similar to the system they have in England in that it is tax funded, our system is for all intents and purposes not paid for by an income tax but what is essentially a Flat Tax. I had never thought Progressives thought a Flat Tax was a good thing.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Peter Schiff can also be very

Peter Schiff can also be very dumb and very smart at the same time.
Smart in his beliefs and ideologies, dumb in the ways he protrays himself, usually as arrogant and full of himself.

Very good Schiff deconstruction.

It is Brand's major problem. He is going to herd his sheep into the same slaughter pen, but different management.

Perpetual deficits are a product of governments

Deficits in the private sector are self-correcting, unless the government steps in with a bail-out.


Firstly I would like to agree that there is no harm in profit, and disagree with RB, that it does not require a counter balancing deficit. I think that it gets a bad name because it is so often confused with the immorally gained wealth which is so predominant today.

I would also suggest that RB seems quite genuine to me, and would probably sacrifice his own illustrious career, if it were a requirement of our adopting his proposed social reforms.

I would then argue that movies aren't only motivated by money. I think that at least half of the reason that they are made is because people like to make them and enjoy people watching them. I often do things simply for the benefit that they will bring somebody else, and so do we all.

I believe that the most powerful motive is love. The mountain climber who risks his life and spends a small fortune to climb a mountain isn't getting paid. A devout doctor who works in a third world country doing 60 hour weeks isn't doing it for money. Giving a family member who lives in another country, money to build themselves a house doesn't increase your monetary wealth. People don't need money to make them do things... they always have and always will !

Freedom is a byproduct of acceptance - judge not.

"I would also suggest that RB

"I would also suggest that RB seems quite genuine to me, and would probably sacrifice his own illustrious career, if it were a requirement of our adopting his proposed social reforms."

He's about as genuine as Warren Buffett, which is not very genuine at all. Warren claims he'll gladly pay more taxes if he drags everyone down with him, but given the choice, he gladly uses every trick and method to lower his taxes as much as physically possible. Have you ever heard of the phrase "Be the change you want to see in the world?" You don't wait around for others to do something, you do it yourself, now. I don't decide to be a mean person just because world peace hasn't happened yet, rather, I'm out there helping neighbors, donating money, and being the best person I can be because I AM genuine.

Fair enough

I don't know much about the guy, I'm just making that assertion based on the feeling I get about him while watching him speak and listening to his views. I don't think that being rich has anything to do with a persons integrity. RB comes across as though he does still care about other people in his own way, and isn't just money or power hungry.

Freedom is a byproduct of acceptance - judge not.

I agree with Peter, of course, but I have a bone to pick

What Peter is talking about is better referred to economically as RETURN ON INVESTMENT, rather than PROFIT. I am taking here the Israel Kirzner position on entrepreneurship, wherein an entrepreneur is someone that ferrets out economic opportunities and acts on them. If successful, the entrepreneur has the potential to make a huge PROFIT. However, absent government intervention to keep out new entries into the market, the PROFIT is a one-time deal. As the opportunity becomes known and the market equililbrates, the huge PROFIT opportunities reduce down to the RETURN ON INVESTMENT, which is a function of interest. Recent examples of this would be Larry and Sergei (as well as all the early Google participants) making billions, or Zuckerberg with Facebook. Although their explanations are poor, intro econ books generally describe this as the economic profit being zero in a market equilibrium.

Thus, the daily struggles of businessmen, which Peter is describing in the video, deal more with earning a RETURN ON INVESTMENT, which is generally in the single digits to low double digits. For example, Larry and Sergei do not continue to keep raking in billions. They keep making money, but the majority of their wealth, which they are sitting on, is what they made as Google seized on the opportunity in the market in the years of rapid growth.

However, some people do keep making BILLIONS. Guess who? The bankers and the crony capitalists. They have a huge RETURN ON INVESTMENT, if you can call it that, because of government intervention and favoritism, as well as the shenanigans of the Federal Reserve. People inherently recognize that there is something wrong with that. This is what, I believe, Russell Brand was referring to.

So perhaps Russell does have a point?

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

What Peter is talking about

What Peter is talking about is better referred to economically as RETURN ON INVESTMENT, rather than PROFIT.

I don't see any difference between a return on investment and profit.

To start any enterprise you would have to have some start up capital be it a lemonade stand or an automobile plant. if you make more than it costs to operate this is your return on your investment or profit.

One annoying thing is the term "gross profits", this is a meaningless term. I always hear people spewing hatred about the gross profits of some company which is usually the oil companies. It should be called the gross income of the company which then you have to subtract the costs of doing business to find out what the net profit is or the return on your investment (if any).

you don't see the difference?

Ok, I guess my explanation was poor. Let me try it another way. Let's say you start selling widgets for 5% profit. Well, that means someone could sell them for 3% profit and still make money and attract customers. This will happen in a free market. But then someone will come in and sell at 2%, and then someone will try to beat them and sell at 1%. How low does this go? As low as the interest rate allows. The price at which the market equilibrates is the RETURN ON INVESTMENT.

However, the first guy to sell this particular widget could have sold them at the 5% margin FOR A LIMITED TIME, even though the market price was a price at the 1% margin. That's entrepreneurial PROFIT.

If you don't agree with my terms, that's fine. I was just trying to distinguish between these two concepts.

I agree that the phrase "gross profits" is meaningless.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

egapele's picture


embed fail on .gif

Schiff was at his best in

Schiff was at his best in this video!

Two Points

1. Why should anyone care about the opinions of yet another PC popular socialist like Russel Brand? That limey is an entertaining actor: why does this make him any kind of authority on anything, let alone economic theory? Because he's famous? ...absurd

2. Schiff explains the function of profit very well; it is the motive behind all action and the only criterion by which to determine whether a given action was worth undertaking. Whereas the Russel Brands of the world would have us abandon rational economic calculation (i.e. calculation on the basis of profit and loss), and live in god damn caves (caves equipped with televisions to watch their stupid f-king moviies?) These popular socialists are morons or lunatics.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Your first question doesn't make any sense.

What does it matter at all whether someone should or shouldn't listen to celebrity opinions?

Exactly what in the world do you mean by this question - "why"?

Pandacentricism will be our downfall.

thank you thank you thank you

peter schiff. i hope someone gets this to russell brand and he does finally see through the govt smokescreen. just like the occupy movement, they see the problem but heaven forbid it could be the almighty govt to blame, the "friend of the people" who is the obvious culprit. maybe if russell wakes up he could lead a new, righteous, occupy movement with ron paul as the commander in chief.

The biggest question for this planet Peter.

Why does there even have to be money? Would humanity die without money? I'm not talking barter in the sense that it has been maligned by the bankster.

Would everyone on this planet really do nothing if there was no money or profit for action to survive by meeting mans basic needs?

No they wouldn't. And it is why I have moved past this place for the most part.

Keep thinking folks. Even the free market people are for banksters.

Are you high? Mushrooms? WTF!

Are you high? Mushrooms? WTF! Real money is stored value. It's a tool of convenience, much like a hammer. By the purple hue of your comment box, I can tell you've been here a while. Seriously. WTF!


I'm confused too, Mr M Oliver, I would love to be enlightened by what you believe, and I think I agree with the sentiment, but that would be just like every other do gooder out there trying to "change" things, it all about the sentiment, but unfortunately does not work in reality.

Money like many have said is simply a tool, a natural progression of trade, nothing sinister about it, it simply allows capital to go where it is needed, more fluently.

How does you moneyless world work in reality?

There's nothing evil about

There's nothing evil about money, it's just a medium of exchange. It's the way that money is brought into existence that's the issue.

Bravo this conversation that's happening between Brand and the populists of the left and those of the right, like Schiff! It's wonderful that there is agreement on the problem - crony capitalism - now if only we were able to reach some consensus on the solution.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Money is

the natural evolution of exchange after the direct barter system becomes too inefficient.

you're there.

This is a paradigm-breaker and most just aren't able to actually conceive it. They truly don't see how anything can work without money... it's the cornerstone of the paradigm.

I don't know if it'll be our lifetime... but the kids might make it work if the drugs/poisons don't get to all of 'em.

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?


is required, it can be any type of money as long as it has a limited supply. It can be pretty shells, beads, gold, etc. The best money is money that is scarce, durable, divisible, and requires labor to produce since it is being used to exchange for other items that require labor (Money-ish qualities as Rothbard said). Prices determine where resources are directed using literally billions or trillions of up to the minute signals acting on the goods being sold and produced.

You either want this system or you want a central planner doing it which means massive mistakes, shortages, famine, death, etc......basically the system that we are devolving back into since there has been so much government intervention and printing of money under the fed and regulation distorting the pricing system. You either believe in one way or the other, as Mises said there is no midway point.

If there is no money/prices/profit how will you determine who gets what and who works?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Marxism.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

so the world is so narrowly-defined

So you think there are only 2 options? central-planning or a system of currency? (either way there's a central planner... the currency comes from somewhere.).

this is what I was saying... you can't conceive of how life can work without money... most can't.

Do you only work to make money? I'm one of those weirdo self-sufficiency nuts. Collect rain-water (no water bill). Use solar/wind. ($12-15 per month from oct-march, the power company pays me $17-24 per month from april-sept). Have a garden, know how to bake/cure/smoke/brine/can/preserve/brew/distil/etc. Only spend $25-30 per week on meat & dairy for a family of 4 + a dog.

The point I'm trying to make is that I'm working toward a lifestyle... hoping to eventually achieve complete self-sufficiency. I'm not doing this because I can't afford to live in this system. I make pretty good money... I don't want to be in this system. I don't want to dedicate my life to paying these bills when I can work harder and faster now to "pay it all off" in advance and be done with it by building my own independent infrastructure.

If you didn't need to obtain money every month in order to pay for energy, communication/information/web access, food, insurance, etc, wouldn't that be preferable to working forever toward paying for this stuff that you never get to enjoy because you're working all the time? or have to utilize only because you're working all the time?

You only think life has to exist within this paradigm because right now (similar to liberal-think) you benefit more from this paradigm as you depend on THEIR infrastructure for survival. Once you free yourself from their control apparatus, you'll see that you don't need money for anything. Money itself is the control-mechanism.

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?


I trade my labor for goods and services. If it's worth it for me to do certain things myself, I do that. If I want to have corn for dinner I skip farming the land and waiting months, I exchange money (which should be commodity backed and represent the labor involved in farming the corn) for some corn. The more local you buy the corn the less dependent you are on anyone. Through the use of commodity money and the division of labor the economy grows and becomes more efficient. When the money is perverted, the system is perverted. I can't become a mechanic, engineer, an architect, heart surgeon, plumber, cell phone maker, etc. Becoming good at one or a few things enables me to earn money which can be exchanged for the other things needed or wanted.

I agree though that if your goal is to live as a caveman, that can be done without money.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

you think like a slave

I'm an architect, engineer, electrician, plumber, cell-phone-repairman, butcher, soap-maker, craftsman, carpenter, fisherman, hunter, farmer, wine-maker, beer-brewer, cheese-maker, chef, soon-to-be-rancher, project-manager, accountant, salesman, musician and entertainer.

And there's absolutely nothing stopping you from being all of those things plus dozens more except that you're stuck in the money-making paradigm. If you didn't have to earn so much money to pay your bills every month, you'd have time to learn anything you found to be of interest.

Free yourself!

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

Jack of

all trades....master of none.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

but one needn't be a master of anything.

I'm not building castles or maintaining a giant tech campus. I'm not feeding an army or providing water for a whole community.

All one needs to know is how to do/make/build the things which are important... and sure those priorities vary from person to person but if you can provide your own necessities and you achieve that level of independence, you come to realize that many of the things you think you "need" are really just addictions that contribute to your enslavement.

You can learn to do everything yourself... I bet your grandfather could repair absolutely anything/everything he owned. He could build things... I bet your grandmother could garden well, sew, knit, crochet,can, preserve, etc.... you know in their day, a single-income family thrived on working-man's wages.

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

I agree with you sentiment but, I bet

Your grandfather could not perform surgery on himself.

How do you pay/trade/barter for that without any form of money.

Money like many have mentioned is a tool, in my opinion a natural creation which facilitates the liquidity of trade, nothing more, nothing less. If a free currency market exists then there can be no central control, and hence, in that environment, that is, freedom, that is all money is, a tool to use.