yep, never started to understand this stuff until i heard peter speak, now i love listening to him, its ridiculous how other economists, intellectuals etc. try to sound smart by stringing a whole bunch of big words togethor but really have no idea what theyre talking about (thats why theyre hard to understand for people new to the subject matter).. where as peter speaks in a way that even a person with no knowledge of finance/ecomonics can understand and actually makes a hell of a lot more sense than most of the morons he debates with
Peter got where he is by competing and succeeding in the free market. Unfortunately Richard spent his life working either for the government or a government sponsored school. Peter earned his lunch. The government stole our lunch and gave it to Richard. It's like a fight between a wolf and a domesticated poodle. If professors could be multi-million dollar entrepreneurs they wouldn't be professors and wouldn't need to be fed with tax dollars like domesticated animals. I'm not saying professors don't make great pets, but they're pets. They're fragile. They can't handle real life.
Kurt Boyd I literally couldn't disagree more. Also, I somehow noticed you place an inherent emphasis on the amount of wealth someone has, as if it is supposed to be the human end. I disagree, money can be a means to an end, but it is by no means determinant of a persons worth. I've met homeless people who didn't have a penny that I would much rather be friends with than a few lawyers I know. Perhaps Plato is correct when he illustrated the Ring of Gyges, perhaps wealth allows people to act discourteously, perhaps the homeless man is kind because his position benefits him to be so. It still doesn't change the fact that wealth is not determinant of a persons worth.
Kurt Boyd That's just what bad students say. No I am kidding. The reality is that most professors make poverty level wages. Roughly 4 out of 5 are adjuncts and they make hourly wages. I can't think of anything more REAL LIFE than living in poverty. This is not good though for academia or for the education system. Professors get scared of losing their jobs and they teach in a safe cookie cutter way so that all the kids that should be making Fs make Bs and As. Also all this anti teacher stuff is idiotic - the fact is most of the greatest minds in in the last 300 years were teachers at some point in their lives. The thoughtless arrogant types like to make false dichotomies or claim to understand something because they succeeded in life monetarily when sometimes much of their success has to do with dumb luck and or cheating. The basic false assumption Peter makes is that it is the natural tendency of a government to do or be corrupt when really it is the unregulated market that causes the corruption- the bought politicians they feed each other etc. It's like Frank Herbert, who was also a teacher, said "If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual.” So replace that with if you assume that the government should be bought and or corrupt it is certain that you will enable a bought and corrupt government. So do the buyers of the government try to maintain among the population that it is the inevitable role of the government to only work for the super rich? People like Peter come along and say it is all the government's fault that someone like him succeeded in part on unsustainable rigged finance and banking systems. Then in the same series of statements claims its the free market that selected for that to happen- inherently assuming that if something is uncontrolled or mirroring the natural world it must be right. No wonder then that this tends towards a dog eat dog world in which might is right or money is right. And they call this an economic inevitability or natural outcome when really it is the result of irresponsible government and irresponsible business models that seek to maximize gains at the overall expense of everyone. Eventually everyone would do better with a more responsible and accountable government and more responsible BIG business. This also feeds into their whole social darwinism, just world fallacy ideas that tend towards white supremacy in the presence of institutionalized racism and more than necessary income and wealth disparity by class, race, and gender. The market cannot regulate itself and it is not inherently good or benevolent anyone who says so is an IDIOT. That is not a value judgement it is an objective truth. Humans are the only animals on the earth who do not have an inborn capacity to thoughtlessly self regulate- a lion knows when to stop hunting. Humans on the other will take and take until the vast majority of the wealth and currency is just stagnating in a few people's possession often in untaxed havens and invested in foreign markets. With thought and understanding comes sustainable profit models and smart government regulation that stimulates the market in a way that is less disadvantageous for the many.
Respect for the professor. He dared to get into discussion with Great Peter... A lot of his colleagues are scared to dead.... Chapeau for the professor. Also chapeau for Peter to keep the professor alive.... ;-)
Speaking as a Louisiana born, Mississippi raised citizen, this "professor's" constant self-degradation was as annoying as it was embarrassing. "Stop interrupting me! I talk slower." Then don't accept the fucking debate. If you can't speak in the public, don't do public speaking! I've never heard anyone in a public speaking setting try so hard to couch their inadequacies in something as irrelevant as where they grew up.
Don't give him so much credit. He's just a college professor, that's only used to speaking to college students, and when Peter Schiff, who is obviously more competent shows up, he gets caught off guard.
Peter has a amazing way of explaining complicated things in a very simple understandable way. He is so quick and incisive that it makes him sound like he has really mastered his subject. On the other hand he has to debate people that go um um um and very slowly draw out a long boring rebuttal. No contest
THANK YOU PETER SCHIFF! Thanks for what you do, spreading the message and getting in these debates. It almost seemed like an intellectual boxing match, and you beat that guy every round. Had him on the ropes until he started talking about how your 'interrupting' him or something, I mean come on. Maybe he should get more of his notes together and come back for a rematch? haha. I wish we had more debates and discussion on this level out there.
Peter really hands this professor his lunch. He had no clue how to respond. He kept looking at Peter to get acceptance to his responses. Classic! Btw, Peter will never get a Noble Prize. He's way to smart..
I started out liking this Professor. He seemed different. By the end, he lost his marbles are revealed he is just as mindless as the rest. Why was he harping on the fact that he was from the South? And he was basically calling Southerners retards who think and speak slowly? It wasn't his Southern drawl that was his problem, it was his incoherent understanding of the economy which clogged up his mental works.
I think agorism is the closest we'll ever get to the answer. I realised something very heartening the other day. I was watching Adam Kokesh and it really hit home that there's a huge conversation occurring about what we want the future to be. Those of us who see through all the baloney are growing. We're fashioning a consensus freely, for a new system while we let them get on with their nonsense. The establishment and its institutions are becoming more and more irrelevant... just hang in there!
47:20 Richard talks about the Long Depression. He said we were on the gold standard at that time, NOT true. Here is the Wiki Article on this: Panic of 1873 and the Long Depression Oct 1873 - Mar 1879 (lasted) 5 years 5 months. 2 years 10 months (since previous recession) Economic problems in Europe prompted the failure of Jay Cooke & Company, the largest bank in the United States, which burst the post-Civil War speculative bubble. The Coinage Act of 1873 also contributed by immediately depressing the price of silver, which hurt North American mining interests.[17] The deflation and wage cuts of the era led to labor turmoil, such as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. In 1879, the United States returned to the gold standard with the Specie Payment Resumption Act. This is the longest period of economic contraction recognized by the NBER. The Long Depression is sometimes held to be the entire period from 1873-96.[18][19]
Also even if the programs were so amazing, how do you justify a 83 trillion dollar medicare liability a 16 trillion dollar social security liability and a 21 trillion dollar medicare prescription drug liability? We are on the hook for 120 trillion. If a private business didn't include liabilities like that in their budget they would be hauled off to federal prison.
Great job schiff. I really like how you talked about the difference between the original fed and todays fed. It really demonstrates the point that whilst government intervention may starts off with good intentions they always have unintended consequences. Political influence on welfare policies solely designed to keep politicians and vested interested parties in jobs. The economy is just too big/complicated to be planned centrally effectively...
I remember throwing things at the TV when Greenspan made that statement on adjustable rate mortgages. I'm an idiot and I knew that was foolish in a era of historically low interest rates.
Professor Carnell is just upset he's getting his butt handed to him, so he resorts to complaining about Schiff interrupting him. Schiff as usual is spot on. Love it.
Its refreshing to see peter debating,even though it wasn't much of a debate someone who has a clue about economics.I have to give it you Peter..No one I know eloquently and accurately understands or able to explain basics/fundamentals of economics and how the economy functions like you do.Keep educating those "Professors" common sense
What about a currency system where private banks and the US government would issue bank notes that could be freely passed among the citizenry for the exchange of goods and services, and, at any time, the citizen could go to the issuing bank and exchange the note for the corresponding amount of gold?
Simple explanations sound best to the most simple minds. Schiff cuts Carnell off and then reiterates a point that he's dead wrong about. Domestic manufacturing output boomed despite the housing bubble. Even the Libertarian Cato institute has called bullshit on this tripe.
John Hebein-caunce If it did bore you to death, you wouldn't have responded. The reason it's so relevant is because the first time Schiff interrupts Carnell, he does so with a comment that is empirically wrong. Your appreciation for a comment that is so demonstrably wrong reveals your ignorance about economy.
Did I even say i agreed with any word peter said? Its funny how the mind works. People think everyone else is 100% wrong when they believe they are right.
From wiki: The average daily volume of gold and silver cleared at the London Bullion Market Association ... was 18.3 million ounces (worth $13.9 billion) and 107.6 million ounces (worth $1.1 billion) respectively. This means that an amount equal to the annual gold mine production was cleared at the LBMA every 4.4 days, and to the annual silver production every 6.2 days. The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee claims that the LBMA market is $5.4 trillion a year.
The main problem of economics and statistics is that their are based on numbers. While math is a great system to see things clearly, statistics are always based on samples, and getting accurate samples is not only hard but expensive (as they have to be big). What Peter Schiff is getting at is that the real value of money comes from the value of real products. And the main reason why basing currencies on things that have limited supply like gold makes sense, is because the planets resources are limited. If there is one pie in the room, It dosent matter how much it costs, only how many people you have to share it it (assuming of course the pie represents all that you can buy). I still think both participans make strong points and a few small mistakes in terms of economic logic, but since I only studied economics for 1 year, I probably dont have as much credibility as they do :D.
Because unlike Bernanke, unlike Geithner, unlike Krugman, unlike Paulson, unlike Greenspan and unlike the Federal Reserve Board of governors who, on federal reserve documents, laughed about the notion of a housing bubble, Peter Schiff actually called the housing bubble.
I think you'll find it's large corporations that lobby for regulations to put burdens on their smaller competitors. $500k/yr is nothing to Goldman Sachs, but it'll kill a new start up.
Cliffs: -Peter predicts financial crisis. -Clown does not. -Peter comes back and says the same stuff. -Clown who didn't see it coming now tries to explain why it happened. -Peter crushes clown
Please, since government is so amazingly successful at solving every one of the world's problems, could you reassure me that the economy is going to be just stupendous in the next few years, and all our massive underlying problems are going to go away?
If anyone watched the Bill O'Reilly vs. Jon Stewart debate, you would've noticed that one of Jon's favorite arguments to use included "it's not that simple," or "it's too complicated for the conservative approach to work," in regards to the economy. I'd like to see a Round 2, with Peter standing in for Bill and see what happens. Also, if you haven't watched the aforementioned debate, I highly encourage you to check it out regardless of your political alignment.
the only thing is that you don't have to explain why it will land on heads in a coin toss, whereas he didn't simply say that it would happen, he explained why and how it would happen. Essentially what your saying is that you expect someone to be able to predict the exact date something will happen as well, which is beyond anyone's ability because he doesn't know what decisions people will make. His lack of an exact date doesn't make him wrong, it makes him honest. and he's absolutely brilliant.
I think it was Austrian economist Mark Thornton who wrote an article with all of the quotes/references to Austrian economists accurately predicting and explaining economic crisis. Ranging from The Great Depression to the GFC. And yes, logically, it is as simple as Austrian's make it out to be...this crisis, like most, is fundamentally due to credit expansion aided by various interventions into markets. Govts then add more interventions to fix prior ones only making things worse.
Completely agree but the wording of Bubbles/Bursts would be completely redundant as fundamentally the free market would only lend to the most worthy. So the up and down would be so far less severe however the growth curve would always tend upwards (albeit slowly) as productivity improved.
No kidding, for my bachelors degree, I had to take an macro economics class that taught nothing but Keynesian economics. needless to say, I spent some time debating with classmates and the instructor about the idiocy of what was being talked about in the book. I even went and complained to the dean that the book had virtually nothing about free market economics and how failed the theories in the book were.
Since you've read it, what were his criticisms of the fed during the great depression? Rothbard wrote his thesis the same year and his conclusions were very different.
Oh for god's sake. The Long recession was an enormous expansion of standard of living. The economists call it a recession because prices were plummeting, but they were plummeting due to massive production.
Ever since 1971 wages increases have not been able to outpace inflation.. Infact, if you don't get a raise every year of atleast 1.5% your wages are decreasing. Prior to 1971 prices for almost everything were going down, we made all the cheap stuff, the expensive stuff was imported. People used to brag about buying things for overseas because we made all the bargain basement, high quality, affordable stuff. As prices went down and your wages went up your money went ever further.
Good Debate, Richard is very intelligent, well educated, great experience and he gave the most well articulated, rational explanation for the advantages of a federal reserve that you will hear & yet the arguments for a free market and sound money by Peter Schiff still blew it out the water. I suspect Richard knows that the practical application of some of the Keynesian ideas he and his ilk have made a living on are wrong, it must be hard to change them but I believe he's wise to do it.
Because if the government is having trouble paying its own debts, how is it going to bail out the FDIC? Where is it going to get that money? So there will be tremendous losses. And even if they print even more money, all that will do is destroy the dollar and depositors will get paid back in worthless money.. The prices of everything will go through the roof and wages won't go up to accommodate that increased price, so whatever is left of the middle class will instantly be wiped out.
It is not that people of south speak slowly. It is just the fact that Peter's concept are crisp and clear so he speaks eloquently, thus easy to understand....
Just because you can't use it to pay for stuff doesn't mean it loses its material value. Paper money is a mere representation of value for means of exchange. The paper is no longer based on gold, but gold still retains its inherent (relatively constant) value. You used to be able to exchange your papers for the weight in gold it represented because it's gold that is the real money.
When the country is on a gold standard the paper markets will not be able to manipulate the price that much. The government can try to increase and decrease the supply but it is way harder to do than paper money. The real gold standard where you buy and sell in real gold and silver.
Until recently we were still living off the wealth we produced during that era. The growth today is not even visible when compared to that time period. We have trillion dollar deficits, the Federal government spends 35% of the GDP,and we can't even grow anywhere near all of that. Even with all this government "help" we can't even come close to what we were back then, not even close. It's actually amazing how little growth we have when compared to that era.I can't understand how you support this
I can understand your frustration with these people, as they're raving incoherently, not unlike the way homeless shopping cart pushers sometimes do. But please keep Peter Schiff out it. He's brilliant, responsive and has extraordinary foresight.
I don't understand, are you saying it's not an exception? The base money supply in Japan has increased 4 fold since 1990, what has not increased is the supply of credit, as soon as asset prices stop falling businesses and individuals will start taking out loans and asset prices will sky-rocket... It's inevitable but if you have some idea otherwise I would like to know...
In all fairness, some people wanted free loans from the government because they couldn't handle being broke. What they didn't realize was that asking for the government is just taking from everyone else who isn't broke and is hurting the top by appeasing the bottom via taxes, and, in that, hurting their chances at rising into the next class by punishing the place they want to be.
What happened was the politico's threatened the banks if they didn't increase banks participation of the CRA even though they didn't really have the regulatory power to do so.
Allowing monetary contraction is a euphemism for not sufficiently increasing the money supply or buying up government bonds. Where did he explicitly say that he opposed the fed?
The professor is not entirely wrong, he agrees with Peter quite a bit, the forest fires example, but the monetary policy argument is where they diverge, although the professor does say responsible monetary policy, but I think the pure free market works better. You have to have the forest fire. Nature does.... Life is full of highs and lows. Interfering with it just leaves us fat and bloated and like the EU...
If there was no forced socialisation of risk there would be no socialisation of risk at all. But you are right, government is involved and is the root cause at every turn. If there was no government involvement then there would not be the gambling that we see. I say let it ride, if it collapses it collapses, then we can rebuild on a solid foundation with risk that is to all parties (eyes wide open).
In 1971 the dollar was marked down dramatically, it lost 2/3rds of its value. Prior to the 1970s a US dollar would get you 4.5 Deutsche Marks and a Swiss Frank was worth about 30 Cents. Well After 1971 A Dollar would only get you 1.5 Deutsche Marks and a Swiss Frank was worth about 80 cents. Oil prices went from $3 a barrel to $30 a barrel...The dollar devaluation is why oil prices went up, it wasn't entirely because of the Arabs, or OPEC. Gas prices were the same when valued in gold.
I just can not seem to understand how Professor's of "Higher" Learning Institutions without ever running a business are recruited to become advisors at any level, let alone at a federal platform. There is a difference between theory and practical knowledge and experience has always been my best teacher, well, besides Peter Schiff that is. All the best in the New Year MR. Schiff.!
He is an advocate for the free market. He even said he would prefer the federal reserve to be abolished. Here is the title to the video "Ron Paul and Milton Friedman Libertarianism: Abolish the Fed"
![Cordae - Saturday Mornings (feat. Lil Wayne) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z2GYJua09F0/mqdefault.jpg)
I loved it when he corrected Schiff, but then Schiff Googled it and corrected the Professors incorrect correction.
Where's the time stamp
27:00
49:17
@@Alphabet7 7 yo Al kj 3
Peter is the man. Learned so much from him. His books are easily understood, informative and full of common sense. Keep it up Peter!
yep, never started to understand this stuff until i heard peter speak, now i love listening to him, its ridiculous how other economists, intellectuals etc. try to sound smart by stringing a whole bunch of big words togethor but really have no idea what theyre talking about (thats why theyre hard to understand for people new to the subject matter).. where as peter speaks in a way that even a person with no knowledge of finance/ecomonics can understand and actually makes a hell of a lot more sense than most of the morons he debates with
@@MrMfiling
Hence how Peter’s primary business was and still is as a consulting firm ;)
This is a good example of Businessman vs "Academia".
“Credible”
Take away the government subsidies to universities and guys like this go away.
Peter got where he is by competing and succeeding in the free market. Unfortunately Richard spent his life working either for the government or a government sponsored school. Peter earned his lunch. The government stole our lunch and gave it to Richard.
It's like a fight between a wolf and a domesticated poodle.
If professors could be multi-million dollar entrepreneurs they wouldn't be professors and wouldn't need to be fed with tax dollars like domesticated animals.
I'm not saying professors don't make great pets, but they're pets. They're fragile. They can't handle real life.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, teach gym.
Kurt Boyd I literally couldn't disagree more. Also, I somehow noticed you place an inherent emphasis on the amount of wealth someone has, as if it is supposed to be the human end. I disagree, money can be a means to an end, but it is by no means determinant of a persons worth. I've met homeless people who didn't have a penny that I would much rather be friends with than a few lawyers I know. Perhaps Plato is correct when he illustrated the Ring of Gyges, perhaps wealth allows people to act discourteously, perhaps the homeless man is kind because his position benefits him to be so. It still doesn't change the fact that wealth is not determinant of a persons worth.
Kurt Boyd That's just what bad students say. No I am kidding. The reality is that most professors make poverty level wages. Roughly 4 out of 5 are adjuncts and they make hourly wages. I can't think of anything more REAL LIFE than living in poverty. This is not good though for academia or for the education system. Professors get scared of losing their jobs and they teach in a safe cookie cutter way so that all the kids that should be making Fs make Bs and As.
Also all this anti teacher stuff is idiotic - the fact is most of the greatest minds in in the last 300 years were teachers at some point in their lives. The thoughtless arrogant types like to make false dichotomies or claim to understand something because they succeeded in life monetarily when sometimes much of their success has to do with dumb luck and or cheating. The basic false assumption Peter makes is that it is the natural tendency of a government to do or be corrupt when really it is the unregulated market that causes the corruption- the bought politicians they feed each other etc.
It's like Frank Herbert, who was also a teacher, said "If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual.” So replace that with if you assume that the government should be bought and or corrupt it is certain that you will enable a bought and corrupt government.
So do the buyers of the government try to maintain among the population that it is the inevitable role of the government to only work for the super rich? People like Peter come along and say it is all the government's fault that someone like him succeeded in part on unsustainable rigged finance and banking systems. Then in the same series of statements claims its the free market that selected for that to happen- inherently assuming that if something is uncontrolled or mirroring the natural world it must be right.
No wonder then that this tends towards a dog eat dog world in which might is right or money is right. And they call this an economic inevitability or natural outcome when really it is the result of irresponsible government and irresponsible business models that seek to maximize gains at the overall expense of everyone. Eventually everyone would do better with a more responsible and accountable government and more responsible BIG business. This also feeds into their whole social darwinism, just world fallacy ideas that tend towards white supremacy in the presence of institutionalized racism and more than necessary income and wealth disparity by class, race, and gender. The market cannot regulate itself and it is not inherently good or benevolent anyone who says so is an IDIOT. That is not a value judgement it is an objective truth.
Humans are the only animals on the earth who do not have an inborn capacity to thoughtlessly self regulate- a lion knows when to stop hunting. Humans on the other will take and take until the vast majority of the wealth and currency is just stagnating in a few people's possession often in untaxed havens and invested in foreign markets. With thought and understanding comes sustainable profit models and smart government regulation that stimulates the market in a way that is less disadvantageous for the many.
James Gant With all due respect, "Jeremiad detected."
ruclips.net/video/1ZMKMoPpVAo/видео.html
I love how Professor Carnell is constantly looking over to Peter during his explanations, almost as if he is looking for approval. lol!
Schiff being a boss as usual
And to think this guy stands and teaches in front of our future generation is mind blowingly depressing
Peter Schiff is such a badass. Look at him just sit there like "whatever" and then BLOW SHIT UP
This is by far Peter's best performance. Nailed every point.
Respect for the professor. He dared to get into discussion with Great Peter... A lot of his colleagues are scared to dead.... Chapeau for the professor. Also chapeau for Peter to keep the professor alive.... ;-)
😂😂
Speaking as a Louisiana born, Mississippi raised citizen, this "professor's" constant self-degradation was as annoying as it was embarrassing. "Stop interrupting me! I talk slower." Then don't accept the fucking debate. If you can't speak in the public, don't do public speaking! I've never heard anyone in a public speaking setting try so hard to couch their inadequacies in something as irrelevant as where they grew up.
my left ear enjoyed this
I was going to make this comment but thank goodness I double checked. Also, same.
🤣
I made the exact comment on one of his previous videos, obviously he has no clue about audio setup. Pity!
LMAO I THOUGHT I WAS THE ONLY ONE
Don't give him so much credit. He's just a college professor, that's only used to speaking to college students, and when Peter Schiff, who is obviously more competent shows up, he gets caught off guard.
"uh uh, um, and uhh umm uhh" - Richard Carnell
My god that was so annoying..
Mr Professor got a lecture.
Peter has a amazing way of explaining complicated things in a very simple understandable way. He is so quick and incisive that it makes him sound like he has really mastered his subject. On the other hand he has to debate people that go um um um and very slowly draw out a long boring rebuttal.
No contest
academics are miserable specimen
THANK YOU PETER SCHIFF! Thanks for what you do, spreading the message and getting in these debates. It almost seemed like an intellectual boxing match, and you beat that guy every round. Had him on the ropes until he started talking about how your 'interrupting' him or something, I mean come on. Maybe he should get more of his notes together and come back for a rematch? haha. I wish we had more debates and discussion on this level out there.
Peter really hands this professor his lunch. He had no clue how to respond. He kept looking at Peter to get acceptance to his responses. Classic!
Btw, Peter will never get a Noble Prize. He's way to smart..
Richard Carnell's overused phrase of the day, "uhh, ummm."
I learned so much from his book "The Real Crash."
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.
you'd think a law school could hire a sound tech for the day ;)
End the Fed
I started out liking this Professor. He seemed different. By the end, he lost his marbles are revealed he is just as mindless as the rest. Why was he harping on the fact that he was from the South? And he was basically calling Southerners retards who think and speak slowly? It wasn't his Southern drawl that was his problem, it was his incoherent understanding of the economy which clogged up his mental works.
I think agorism is the closest we'll ever get to the answer. I realised something very heartening the other day. I was watching Adam Kokesh and it really hit home that there's a huge conversation occurring about what we want the future to be. Those of us who see through all the baloney are growing. We're fashioning a consensus freely, for a new system while we let them get on with their nonsense. The establishment and its institutions are becoming more and more irrelevant... just hang in there!
This is more like an agreement and discussion rather than a debate.
"The next crisis is going to dwarf the Great Depression." This is scary considering Schiff was right about the last crisis.
That fire-suppression analogy is PERFECT. Thank you!
47:20 Richard talks about the Long Depression. He said we were on the gold standard at that time, NOT true. Here is the Wiki Article on this:
Panic of 1873 and the Long Depression Oct 1873 -
Mar 1879 (lasted) 5 years 5 months. 2 years 10 months (since previous recession)
Economic problems in Europe prompted the failure of Jay Cooke & Company, the largest bank in the United States, which burst the post-Civil War speculative bubble. The Coinage Act of 1873 also contributed by immediately depressing the price of silver, which hurt North American mining interests.[17] The deflation and wage cuts of the era led to labor turmoil, such as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. In 1879, the United States returned to the gold standard with the Specie Payment Resumption Act. This is the longest period of economic contraction recognized by the NBER. The Long Depression is sometimes held to be the entire period from 1873-96.[18][19]
I think it's safe to say that Peter took a giant Shiff all over this dude's arguments
Also even if the programs were so amazing, how do you justify a 83 trillion dollar medicare liability a 16 trillion dollar social security liability and a 21 trillion dollar medicare prescription drug liability?
We are on the hook for 120 trillion. If a private business didn't include liabilities like that in their budget they would be hauled off to federal prison.
That stare down in the beginning while the moderator introduces them both is insane...
Great job schiff. I really like how you talked about the difference between the original fed and todays fed. It really demonstrates the point that whilst government intervention may starts off with good intentions they always have unintended consequences. Political influence on welfare policies solely designed to keep politicians and vested interested parties in jobs. The economy is just too big/complicated to be planned centrally effectively...
Thanks to this debate, I now finally understand Peter, he is 98% right
I remember throwing things at the TV when Greenspan made that statement on adjustable rate mortgages. I'm an idiot and I knew that was foolish in a era of historically low interest rates.
Professor Carnell is just upset he's getting his butt handed to him, so he resorts to complaining about Schiff interrupting him. Schiff as usual is spot on. Love it.
Its refreshing to see peter debating,even though it wasn't much of a debate someone who has a clue about economics.I have to give it you Peter..No one I know eloquently and accurately understands or able to explain basics/fundamentals of economics and how the economy functions like you do.Keep educating those "Professors" common sense
We like to believe that the "crisis" is so complex, mostly because it makes us feel better about our inablity to fix or understand it!
What about a currency system where private banks and the US government would issue bank notes that could be freely passed among the citizenry for the exchange of goods and services, and, at any time, the citizen could go to the issuing bank and exchange the note for the corresponding amount of gold?
"so um, the um, so... so um... the uhh... um..."
Introducing to you first, fighting out of the blue corner, RICHARDDDDD uh uh ummm uhhhhhhhh CARNELLLLLLLL
Agreed. Someone needs to make a table of contents that lists all the times Schiff speaks to save time.
Keep up the good work Schiff!!
I'm in the UK, so if people break down my door I'm allowed to ring the police. And if the police break down my door well...
Correct. It allows people to pursue their own goals at their own pace for their own reasons.
Love to watch and watch your videos. There is always something to learn. Plus you're easy to look at ....lol
This is more of an agreement-thon than a debate.
Peter always cuts people of. I LOVE IT hahahah
Simple explanations sound best to the most simple minds. Schiff cuts Carnell off and then reiterates a point that he's dead wrong about. Domestic manufacturing output boomed despite the housing bubble. Even the Libertarian Cato institute has called bullshit on this tripe.
I'm sorry but you bored me to death. Don't see how your reply had much to do with my post but thanks for bothering me.
John Hebein-caunce
If it did bore you to death, you wouldn't have responded. The reason it's so relevant is because the first time Schiff interrupts Carnell, he does so with a comment that is empirically wrong. Your appreciation for a comment that is so demonstrably wrong reveals your ignorance about economy.
Did I even say i agreed with any word peter said? Its funny how the mind works. People think everyone else is 100% wrong when they believe they are right.
You "LOVE IT" when Peter Schiff makes a double ass out of himself ? If you agree with that, then you have my apology.
Remember kids, the government never does anything wrong. They are a shining beacon of morality.
So if loans from banking reserves are off the table how should new money be created and distributed?
First impression: Great moderator!
From wiki:
The average daily volume of gold and silver cleared at the London Bullion Market Association ... was 18.3 million ounces (worth $13.9 billion) and 107.6 million ounces (worth $1.1 billion) respectively. This means that an amount equal to the annual gold mine production was cleared at the LBMA every 4.4 days, and to the annual silver production every 6.2 days. The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee claims that the LBMA market is $5.4 trillion a year.
The main problem of economics and statistics is that their are based on numbers. While math is a great system to see things clearly, statistics are always based on samples, and getting accurate samples is not only hard but expensive (as they have to be big).
What Peter Schiff is getting at is that the real value of money comes from the value of real products. And the main reason why basing currencies on things that have limited supply like gold makes sense, is because the planets resources are limited.
If there is one pie in the room, It dosent matter how much it costs, only how many people you have to share it it (assuming of course the pie represents all that you can buy).
I still think both participans make strong points and a few small mistakes in terms of economic logic, but since I only studied economics for 1 year, I probably dont have as much credibility as they do :D.
How did this situation come about? What enabled it?
Because unlike Bernanke, unlike Geithner, unlike Krugman, unlike Paulson, unlike Greenspan and unlike the Federal Reserve Board of governors who, on federal reserve documents, laughed about the notion of a housing bubble, Peter Schiff actually called the housing bubble.
I think you'll find it's large corporations that lobby for regulations to put burdens on their smaller competitors. $500k/yr is nothing to Goldman Sachs, but it'll kill a new start up.
Cliffs:
-Peter predicts financial crisis.
-Clown does not.
-Peter comes back and says the same stuff.
-Clown who didn't see it coming now tries to explain why it happened.
-Peter crushes clown
Please, since government is so amazingly successful at solving every one of the world's problems, could you reassure me that the economy is going to be just stupendous in the next few years, and all our massive underlying problems are going to go away?
If anyone watched the Bill O'Reilly vs. Jon Stewart debate, you would've noticed that one of Jon's favorite arguments to use included "it's not that simple," or "it's too complicated for the conservative approach to work," in regards to the economy.
I'd like to see a Round 2, with Peter standing in for Bill and see what happens.
Also, if you haven't watched the aforementioned debate, I highly encourage you to check it out regardless of your political alignment.
Who ever would have guessed that Stewie would grow up to be a debate moderator
the only thing is that you don't have to explain why it will land on heads in a coin toss, whereas he didn't simply say that it would happen, he explained why and how it would happen. Essentially what your saying is that you expect someone to be able to predict the exact date something will happen as well, which is beyond anyone's ability because he doesn't know what decisions people will make. His lack of an exact date doesn't make him wrong, it makes him honest. and he's absolutely brilliant.
What graph are you looking at?
I think it was Austrian economist Mark Thornton who wrote an article with all of the quotes/references to Austrian economists accurately predicting and explaining economic crisis. Ranging from The Great Depression to the GFC. And yes, logically, it is as simple as Austrian's make it out to be...this crisis, like most, is fundamentally due to credit expansion aided by various interventions into markets. Govts then add more interventions to fix prior ones only making things worse.
Completely agree but the wording of Bubbles/Bursts would be completely redundant as fundamentally the free market would only lend to the most worthy. So the up and down would be so far less severe however the growth curve would always tend upwards (albeit slowly) as productivity improved.
30 minutes in I feel like it is a huge waste of time to finish this video since the professor is so painful to listen to.
Agreed - that Smoky the Bear analogy alone took 5 minutes to get out and was horrible. I'm just going back to some Schiff interviews.
No kidding, for my bachelors degree, I had to take an macro economics class that taught nothing but Keynesian economics. needless to say, I spent some time debating with classmates and the instructor about the idiocy of what was being talked about in the book. I even went and complained to the dean that the book had virtually nothing about free market economics and how failed the theories in the book were.
Right and I don't understand why it's so "complicated" either.
Since you've read it, what were his criticisms of the fed during the great depression?
Rothbard wrote his thesis the same year and his conclusions were very different.
They don't speak of these flash crashes before the FED. Since the FED when things go bad it makes HISTORY, I bet this next crash is one for the ages.
Oh for god's sake. The Long recession was an enormous expansion of standard of living. The economists call it a recession because prices were plummeting, but they were plummeting due to massive production.
Ever since 1971 wages increases have not been able to outpace inflation.. Infact, if you don't get a raise every year of atleast 1.5% your wages are decreasing. Prior to 1971 prices for almost everything were going down, we made all the cheap stuff, the expensive stuff was imported. People used to brag about buying things for overseas because we made all the bargain basement, high quality, affordable stuff. As prices went down and your wages went up your money went ever further.
heart ached to watch, no wonder America in deep shit....
Good Debate, Richard is very intelligent, well educated, great experience and he gave the most well articulated, rational explanation for the advantages of a federal reserve that you will hear & yet the arguments for a free market and sound money by Peter Schiff still blew it out the water. I suspect Richard knows that the practical application of some of the Keynesian ideas he and his ilk have made a living on are wrong, it must be hard to change them but I believe he's wise to do it.
Because if the government is having trouble paying its own debts, how is it going to bail out the FDIC? Where is it going to get that money? So there will be tremendous losses. And even if they print even more money, all that will do is destroy the dollar and depositors will get paid back in worthless money.. The prices of everything will go through the roof and wages won't go up to accommodate that increased price, so whatever is left of the middle class will instantly be wiped out.
Peter speaks with the power of a man who’s father died for his principles in federal prison, not like the academics.
Exactly... Markets shouldn't be free. They should be forced into doing it the right way : )
My left ear loves this debate.
It is not that people of south speak slowly. It is just the fact that Peter's concept are crisp and clear so he speaks eloquently, thus easy to understand....
Just because you can't use it to pay for stuff doesn't mean it loses its material value. Paper money is a mere representation of value for means of exchange. The paper is no longer based on gold, but gold still retains its inherent (relatively constant) value. You used to be able to exchange your papers for the weight in gold it represented because it's gold that is the real money.
When the country is on a gold standard the paper markets will not be able to manipulate the price that much. The government can try to increase and decrease the supply but it is way harder to do than paper money. The real gold standard where you buy and sell in real gold and silver.
Until recently we were still living off the wealth we produced during that era. The growth today is not even visible when compared to that time period. We have trillion dollar deficits, the Federal government spends 35% of the GDP,and we can't even grow anywhere near all of that. Even with all this government "help" we can't even come close to what we were back then, not even close. It's actually amazing how little growth we have when compared to that era.I can't understand how you support this
I can understand your frustration with these people, as they're raving incoherently, not unlike the way homeless shopping cart pushers sometimes do. But please keep Peter Schiff out it. He's brilliant, responsive and has extraordinary foresight.
My left ear heard a great debate.
I don't understand, are you saying it's not an exception? The base money supply in Japan has increased 4 fold since 1990, what has not increased is the supply of credit, as soon as asset prices stop falling businesses and individuals will start taking out loans and asset prices will sky-rocket... It's inevitable but if you have some idea otherwise I would like to know...
Good for you!!
In all fairness, some people wanted free loans from the government because they couldn't handle being broke. What they didn't realize was that asking for the government is just taking from everyone else who isn't broke and is hurting the top by appeasing the bottom via taxes, and, in that, hurting their chances at rising into the next class by punishing the place they want to be.
What happened was the politico's threatened the banks if they didn't increase banks participation of the CRA even though they didn't really have the regulatory power to do so.
I said it was a widely traded commodity, and it has universally accepted value. With a few other criteria, that's exactly what money is.
20:57 best sound effect placement!!!
Allowing monetary contraction is a euphemism for not sufficiently increasing the money supply or buying up government bonds. Where did he explicitly say that he opposed the fed?
The professor is not entirely wrong, he agrees with Peter quite a bit, the forest fires example, but the monetary policy argument is where they diverge, although the professor does say responsible monetary policy, but I think the pure free market works better. You have to have the forest fire. Nature does.... Life is full of highs and lows. Interfering with it just leaves us fat and bloated and like the EU...
In what terms are talking and give me a source.
Haha... these two completely agree! ... Very funny... and informative.
If there was no forced socialisation of risk there would be no socialisation of risk at all. But you are right, government is involved and is the root cause at every turn. If there was no government involvement then there would not be the gambling that we see. I say let it ride, if it collapses it collapses, then we can rebuild on a solid foundation with risk that is to all parties (eyes wide open).
In 1971 the dollar was marked down dramatically, it lost 2/3rds of its value. Prior to the 1970s a US dollar would get you 4.5 Deutsche Marks and a Swiss Frank was worth about 30 Cents. Well After 1971 A Dollar would only get you 1.5 Deutsche Marks and a Swiss Frank was worth about 80 cents. Oil prices went from $3 a barrel to $30 a barrel...The dollar devaluation is why oil prices went up, it wasn't entirely because of the Arabs, or OPEC. Gas prices were the same when valued in gold.
I just can not seem to understand how Professor's of "Higher" Learning Institutions without ever running a business are recruited to become advisors at any level, let alone at a federal platform.
There is a difference between theory and practical knowledge and experience has always been my best teacher, well, besides Peter Schiff that is. All the best in the New Year MR. Schiff.!
the professor had all his paperwork and references. Peter just had his brain and his smartphone and still "opened a can of wup-ass" on him.
He is an advocate for the free market. He even said he would prefer the federal reserve to be abolished. Here is the title to the video "Ron Paul and Milton Friedman Libertarianism: Abolish the Fed"
Kan someone give me all the minute:second marks where Peter speaks? That will save me some time and make sure I don't fall asleep.