Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

In defense of Peter Schiff

rated by 0 users
This post has 106 Replies | 6 Followers

Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,249
Points 70,775
Smiling Dave Posted: Mon, Dec 20 2010 8:45 PM

Lately, Peter has caught a lot of flak on the forums. The main crimes seem to be:

1. He went to a dinner that he was paid to attend.

2. Lewrockwell.com hasn't had an article of his in almost 2 whole months.

3. He is a fool, an idiot, and other synonyms indicating his lack of intelligence.

4. He introduced concepts that have nothing to do with AE, such as the trade deficit. Indeed, praxeology does not recognize trade deficits.

5. He is an embarrasment to AE.

6. The things he says are not economics, but strange ideas that have little to do with reality.

Looking these over, they sound so absurd that one can but laugh. All of these accusations are not made by recognized economists of the Austrian school, but by posters on the forum with no credentials. Just saying.

On the other hand, Peter has been embraced by those Austrians who are universally recognized as knowing of what they speak. Lew Rockwell has archived many of his writings. He was the Henry Hazlitt Memorial lecturer at one of the Ludwig von Mises Institute's get togethers. The lecture, and its warm reception by the audience, is available free on Youtube. 

I'm not sure if Max Keiser is an Austrian, but he has called Peter's book brilliant, and has publicly stated he has read it many times. Yes, the book about the trade deficit.

Bob Murphy has publicly acknowledged that he has erred when disagreeing with Peter Schiff about predictions on the economy.

So you ignorant slanderers, crawl back into your dark caves and let the light shine.

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 110
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
filc replied on Mon, Dec 20 2010 9:40 PM

tbh I like Peter. I like his Dad to.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,365
Points 30,945

Max Keiser is not an Austrian and he is not a free marketer, since he called Paul Krugman a "neoliberal". The man condemns Google for being successful on the internet, and says that the "internet was meant for common taxpayer good". He also complains that financial regulation has failed, and that financial markets could not have been regulated more, even though they are the most regulated markets in any country.

As it is, I don't like conspiracy theorists like Keiser, whose views are not based on science and analysis, but on taking any view that most matches a conspiratorial, sensational viewpoint. They will be free market when it is anti-establishment, they will be anti-free-market when it is anti-establishment, they will be progressives when it is anti-establishment, and they will be anti-progressives when it is anti-establishment.

Smiling Dave, I don't give a god damn about titles and degrees and honours bestowed. I merely want a person to put his money where his mouth is. Schiff made predictions of hyperinflation. Such sensational claims were completely unnecessary. What do you expect? That you can get away with saying that western nations can become like Zimbabwe and not be accountable to what you said? It shows not an interest in solving problems of today, but in getting media attention and showing gleeful desire to profit from demise. It's akin to behaving like Mao Zedong, who said that a global nuclear war would be preferable, because it would lead to a faster spread of socialism.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,434
Points 29,210

I like Peter Schiff as well. I don't understand the dinner thing. I'd go to dinner with almost anyone if they were paying for it and I could talk economics/philosophy with them.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Max Keiser is a progressive, who thinks that people should short stocks to punish companies, and that unions kidnapping execs is a good thing.

You've made a lot of non-specific claims about what others think of Peter Schiff.  You've also selectively ignored anything that doesn't fit into the victim narrative, in another thread for yourself, and in this thread, for Peter.  That's sloppy, but then the OP, particularly the title, reads more like a fan defense than an intellectual argument.  The discussions are elsewhere, you have chosen not to argue the facts, you've chosen to make some generalized push back against random opinions.

Maybe you should stop identifying so personally with Peter, and try to look at the critiques or issues with less emotion if you want to understand where people are coming from.

Schiff makes a lot of claims which are not Austrian, and yet AE laymen tend to get passionate and excited about his television appearances and financial opinions.

All of that is fine, but it still doesn't make him (1) an Austrian economist, (2) a good economist or (3) a consistent libertarian.

I wouldn't have a problem with you posting Schiffisms if you articulated they weren't AE but his own personal opinions.  Answering economic questions with Schiffisms that are outside AE isn't very helpful to people looking for knowledge.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,651
Points 51,325
Moderator
krazy kaju replied on Mon, Dec 20 2010 10:19 PM

TBH, I have greater economic knowledge than Peter Schiff, and I'm a 19 year old sitting behind a computer screen. I'm not impressed at all by the man.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,365
Points 30,945

And I will humbly say that I may have less knowledge than everybody else, but I don't put much faith in people who show certainty in bold predictions. And that's something which the smartest can be guilty of doing.

It's sometimes not intelligence or knowledge, but other things, like making the right decision with what you say or don't say. Does that not matter?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

TBH, you're an exceptional 19 year old.  But your point is valid.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,249
Points 70,775

OK good luck, guys. Roll around in the mud of your ignorance, and be happy.

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,651
Points 51,325
Moderator
krazy kaju replied on Mon, Dec 20 2010 10:39 PM

Thanks LS. And why the hate, Dave?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,365
Points 30,945

You could be a little nicer. Just call us ignorant instead of "Roll around in the mud of your ignorance".

Let's not break good terms, shall we?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,249
Points 70,775

You are right. I apologize

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,249
Points 70,775

there's a long backstory to this, and I was stung by a certain persons arrogant barbs. I apologize for losing it.

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 206
Points 3,855

Is Peter Schiff the latest economist that Libertarians have decided to throw to the wolves?  I do not agree with everything the man says, but his track record is impressive, having predicted-- in great detail-- the last two major crashes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc&playnext=1&list=PL02CE50631368BE82&index=23

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj8rMwdQf6k

Schiff runs his own investment firm with a spotless reputation.  He eats, sleeps, and breathes economics, plus he actually has skin in the game.  I certainly trust his opinion over any armchair economist on a forum.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 145
Points 3,690
FunkedUp replied on Tue, Dec 21 2010 12:28 AM

You guys have to remember that Schiff isn't an academic. He's a successful businessman with a good understanding of finance. I'm pretty sure that no one here on these boards knows more about finance or running an investment business than Schiff.  I think some people just get angry because not all Austrians are anarchists. Overall, Schiff is good for the liberty movement. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

FleetCenturion:
I certainly trust his opinion over any armchair economist on a forum.

This stuff ^^^ is why Schiffism can be dangerous when conflated with actual economics.  Next we'll be hearing that Rothbard or Mises were not authorities because they didn't have "skin in the game".  As though economics is the domain of investors, and not every living human being.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

FunkedUp:
You guys have to remember that Schiff isn't an academic.

Most of us aren't academics either.

FunkedUp:
I think some people just get angry because not all Austrians are anarchists.

Which people?  Based on what?

FunkedUp:
Overall, Schiff is good for the liberty movement.

I don't know what the "liberty movement" is, but assuming such a thing exists, then surely his endorsement of pre-emptive war, in places like Iraq, is a marvel of modern libertarian thinking.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Smiling Dave:
there's a long backstory to this, and I was stung by a certain persons arrogant barbs. I apologize for losing it.

Let's not forget who addressed who first.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,434
Points 29,210

I don't know what the "liberty movement" is, but assuming such a thing exists, then surely his endorsement of pre-emptive war, in places like Iraq, is a marvel of modern libertarian thinking.

The liberty movement is people like all of us being on here discussing these topics and making ourselves more informed individuals. Anyone who can lead someone to discussions like the ones on this website is fantastic for spreading liberty. One of the main reasons I was first interested in politics was because of an Alex Jones documentary. Sure, he talks about a lot of conspiracies, but that interested me to the point where I became familiar with names like Geithner and Bernanke, and I was able to follow conversations with more interest afterwards. I might not agree with every single thing Ron Paul or Lew Rockwell or Peter Schiff says, but they do a good job bringing people into the conversations.

And I don't know which interview/statement you're saying Schiff made that supported pre-emptive war, but I can't find anything on it online. The things I've been reading/watching are him denouncing the wars, but maybe you're referring to something he said before the wars started. Can you post the source you were looking at?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
filc replied on Tue, Dec 21 2010 1:09 AM

krazy kaju:
TBH, I have greater economic knowledge than Peter Schiff, and I'm a 19 year old sitting behind a computer screen. I'm not impressed at all by the man.

Just about every person here believes that for themselves.

At least in your case it's probably true, but to be fair these kinds of statements will never hold much weight in an internet forum where every person thinks they are more intellectually superior then the next person.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,249
Points 70,775

OK thanks for the info about Max.

"Smiling Dave, I don't give a god damn about titles and degrees and honours bestowed.

The idea is that if people who are recognized experts in the Austrian community invite Peter to be the Henry Hazlitt Memorial speaker, and someone else decides to badmouth him, one should pause and think "Hmm. Maybe there is something to look into here. Maybe, just maybe, the accepted opinion of the Austrian community is right. Let me investigate. "

I merely want a person to put his money where his mouth is. Schiff made predictions of hyperinflation.

When did he say it will happen? Give it time, give the govt time to print all they plan to.

Such sensational claims were completely unnecessary.

If they are true, then it is neccesary to warn people, sensational or not. Notice also that he tells you exactly WHY he predicts what he predicts, always.  I think that is exemplary.

What do you expect? That you can get away with saying that western nations can become like Zimbabwe and not be accountable to what you said?

I agree, if it doesn't happen, he will certainly have egg on his face. But his deadline has not arrived yet. Patience.

It shows not an interest in solving problems of today,

He is trying to warn those who will follow his line of reasoning [that he clearly states] to get out of Dodge [= the dollar] while they still can. I would say that protecting the populace from losing all their money is solving problems of today, mais non?

but in getting media attention

Don't you think that if he started kissing the govts feet he would get much much more media attention and respect and money. like Nouriel Roubini?

and showing gleeful desire to profit from demise.

You are saying he knows he is wrong, that there will be no demise, but he wants to profit from the nonexistent demise?

It's akin to behaving like Mao Zedong, who said that a global nuclear war would be preferable, because it would lead to a faster spread of socialism."

What good thing is he saying will come of everyone losing their life savings? When has he said that hyperinflation is preferable? Link please.

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,249
Points 70,775

"Can you post the source you were looking at?"

You assume he has a source. Expect the stock reply "I wont do your research for you" doublespeak for "there is no source"

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,249
Points 70,775

liberty student:

FleetCenturion:
I certainly trust his opinion over any armchair economist on a forum.

This stuff ^^^ is why Schiffism can be dangerous when conflated with actual economics.  Next we'll be hearing that Rothbard or Mises were not authorities because they didn't have "skin in the game".  As though economics is the domain of investors, and not every living human being.

So some armchair economist in a forum thinks he is Rothbard or Mises.

Can you provide any proof whatsoever that any thing at all that Peter said is not economics? Mises and Rothbard offered proof. Just open any page in their books and you will see. They never said "Go do your own research to see I am right."

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Brian,

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=peter+schiff+iran

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=peter+schiff+neocon

Peter Schiff is a neo-con?

I do get tired of doing your research for you.  Maybe you could start to do some yourself?

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Smiling Dave:
"Can you post the source you were looking at?"

You assume he has a source. Expect the stock reply "I wont do your research for you" doublespeak for "there is no source"

I don't like doing Brian's research for him, because he will never learn to do research for himself that way.  It's more important for me that he finds his own opinion, his own way, than to have to subtantiate everything I say.  As we have already seen, small people will attack me personally, regardless of what I will say, or how many source links (9) I will provide.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Smiling Dave:
So some armchair economist in a forum thinks he is Rothbard or Mises.

This is a strawman argument.  Which is a logical fallacy.  The difference between a strawman and a blatant lie, is intent.  Fine line to walk I say.

Smiling Dave:
Can you provide any proof whatsoever that any thing at all that Peter said is not economics? Mises and Rothbard offered proof. Just open any page in their books and you will see. They never said "Go do your own research to see I am right."

What proof do you want?  I have posted numerous challenges to your attempts to articulate Schiffism.  Let's have a debate.  You and me.  One thread.  Pick anything substantial about Peter Schiff I have questioned on its economic merits.  Back up all of your claims and ask me to backup mine.  Let's do it.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 145
Points 3,690
FunkedUp replied on Tue, Dec 21 2010 1:30 AM

 

LS...

I think some anarchists (such as yourself) are angry because statists (such as Schiff) are not 100% devoted to logical interpretations of the implications of the praxeological method. Do you also get angry at Ron Paul when he suggests that the US needs to control its borders? Does it anger you that he doesn't call for the privatization of roads and highways when he's speaking in front of Congress? 

I do agree with your assertion about Schiff being for preventive war - do some homework on what preventive/preemptive war means; it's an important distinction. Schiff has been against the invasion of Iraq, but is for the preventive invasion of Iran if they develop nuclear weapons. It is unfortunate that Schiff carries this stance, but ceteris parabis Schiff is good for the liberty movement. You know what I mean by the liberty movement. Why are you so hostile to people on these forums? You should be happy that a well known businessman pimps Austrian economics and leads people to the works of Mises, Rothbard, etc. I suppose you think this is detrimental to the liberty movement? 

Like I said... I think that a lot of anarchists (such as yourself) just get angry because certain people (such as Schiff) aren't 100% Rothbardian. 

Do I need to define "angry" for you too?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,249
Points 70,775

Only to be expected. Not a shred of anything. Two google searches that have just as many results refuting LS's thesis as support it, and a thread from here that also explains quite clearly that LS is totally wrong.

LS, a page of google search is not a source. For example, do a google search for "hitler nobel prize" and you will get over half a million results. So?

You expect the reader to wade through that pile?

The correct thing, sweetums, is to link to a SPECIFIC video. Got it?

What you have to do, [I explain patiently], is what Rothbard and Mises, and any serious person who ever lived, did. They never said "I wont do your research for you" They provided chapter and verse. You make a claim, you have to back it up. Not me, not Brian not anyone else. You. Be responsible.

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

FunkedUp:

LS...

I think some anarchists (such as yourself) are angry because statists (such as Schiff) are not 100% devoted to logical interpretations of the implications of the praxeological method.

How did you draw this conclusion?

FunkedUp:
I do agree with your assertion about Schiff being for preventive war - do some homework on what preventive/preemptive war means; it's an important distinction.

They are the same thing, the only difference is the rationalizing.  War is murder.

FunkedUp:
ceteris parabis Schiff is good for the liberty movement.

This is an opinion only.  It's unprovable.

FunkedUp:
Why are you so hostile to people on these forums?

I'm not hostile to "people".  I am short with certain individuals at certain times.  I'm under no obligation to engage every doofus with a claim or question, demand or attack.  People who make quality posts and post in good faith, usually get good faith responses.  No one is entitled to more, and I certainly don't demand that sort of hand holding and babysitting myself.

FunkedUp:
I suppose you think this is detrimental to the liberty movement?

I still don't know what the movement is.  Could you define it?

FunkedUp:
Like I said... I think that a lot of anarchists (such as yourself) just get angry because certain people (such as Schiff) aren't 100% Rothbardian.

I couldn't care if he is or is not a Rothbardian.  I draw influence from lots of people who have no use for Rothbard.

Do you really think your diagnosis of my "anger" is correct, when you don't even know my stance on Rothbard?

FunkedUp:
Do I need to define "angry" for you too?

Might as well define your terms, let's clear up misconceptions.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,249
Points 70,775

You have never challenged anything specific that Peter said. Your only specifc gripe is that he went to dinner.

If I am wrong, and you have made some specific assertion, please tell me what it is, and I will debate you.

BTW, you dont know what a straw man is. Allow me to explain your error.

When someone writes, "I trust Peter more than some armchair economist in a forum", and you conclude from that alone that "You are attacking Mises and Rothbard", that is a logical error, a non sequitor. It is also a straw man.

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Smiling Dave:
Only to be expected. Not a shred of anything. Two google searches that have just as many results refuting LS's thesis as support it, and a thread from here that also explains quite clearly that LS is totally wrong.

I'm surprised you were able to read the entire multi-page thread, in that time.  I'm also surprised you were able to read the top search results, and watch the videos in such short order.  Simply amazing Dave.

I gave searches to Brian, to show him the sort of search terms I am using to locate the information I am after.  Again, I am not going to do his homework for him.  But the answers are on this forum, and on sites found in those search results.  As Funked Up indicated, Schiff's foreign policy positions aren't exactly a state secret or figment of my imagination.

It is amazing the ends you will go to, the sheer mass of dishonesty you will post, in an attempt to discredit me, when it is obvious to everyone reading, that I just challenged you to a debate on facts, and you won't have any of it, instead continuing to engage in logical fallacies like strawmen and ad hominems.

Smiling Dave:
You expect the reader to wade through that pile?

I expect people to do their own research, and draw their own conclusions.  No one should believe me.  But if you want to prove me wrong, then do the work. 

Smiling Dave:
The correct thing, sweetums, is to link to a SPECIFIC video. Got it?

The video was linked in the Mises thread, and in the Prison Planet results.  Maybe the Daily Paul too.  If you aren't seeing it, then you're surfing with your eyes closed.

Smiling Dave:
What you have to do, [I explain patiently], is what Rothbard and Mises, and any serious person who ever lived, did. They never said "I wont do your research for you" They provided chapter and verse. You make a claim, you have to back it up. Not me, not Brian not anyone else. You. Be responsible.

Don't treat me like a serious person.  Continue to post logical fallacies, and then demand the burden of proof is on me, when you won't make ANY attempt to satisfy the burden of proof when you make claims.

 

My offer to debate still stands.  If you think you're right and I am wrong, why not engage me, mano a mano, in front of everyone, for all to judge on the merits of the conversation?  What do you have to lose?

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Smiling Dave:
You have never challenged anything specific that Peter said. Your only specifc gripe is that he went to dinner.

Where did I gripe about this?  Source please?

Smiling Dave:
If I am wrong, and you have made some specific assertion, please tell me what it is, and I will debate you.

You're the one making threads, claiming people are saying such and such.  Go back to your OP, and point by point, substantiate who said what, and where.  When you're done, whatever your beef with me, we will debate it.

Smiling Dave:
When someone writes, "I trust Peter more than some armchair economist in a forum", and you conclude from that alone that "You are attacking Mises and Rothbard", that is a logical error, a non sequitor. It is also a straw man.

That wasn't a conclusion I made.  Go back and re-read my post.

Seriously man, this is basic reading comprehension, am I responsible for teaching English as well?

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Debate started here

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/21703.aspx

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 145
Points 3,690
FunkedUp replied on Tue, Dec 21 2010 2:03 AM

Opinion based statement. That's what forums are all about.

No they are not; unless you consider yourself a pacifist. I agree that the law school shoeboys can muck up the definitions and that government is incapable of declaring a just war. However, my pointing out of this matter is meant to highlight the fact that preemptive force (using force to thwart an imminent attack) is 100% justified. If you disagree with this statement then that would make you a pacifist. No shame if you are one, but if a robber broke into your home and was coming at you with a knife (and you had a gun) would you preempt his attack by shooting him? A preventive attack would consist of you deciding to use violence against this individual before he even gave an indication that he was going to rob you. In short, preemptive = attacking in anticipatory self defense and preventive = attacking before a threat materializes. Again, governments can muck up these definitions and that's where problems arise, but I think I made my case. There is a big difference between the two. 

Correct.

Good response. 

The "liberty movement" is a movement that attempts to move away (even if just slightly) from the current status quo and towards a pure market economy. Rothbard used a great analogy by coining "the freedom train." He said that he was conducting the train and driving it towards freedom. Anyone that wanted to hop on for the ride to freedom was welcome, and anyone that wanted to hop off at any point was welcome. Anyone that wants to take the freedom train (even just one stop) towards freedom is part of liberty movement - unless they start to obstruct the agenda once the train goes past their stop. 

Nope, I'm just guessing.

Anger - A strong form of hostility.  

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

FunkedUp:
Opinion based statement. That's what forums are all about.

Indeed, but we have some people who can't distinguish between an opinion and fact, for themselves, or for others.

FunkedUp:
However, my pointing out of this matter is meant to highlight the fact that preemptive force (using force to thwart an imminent attack) is 100% justified.

What constitutes an imminent attack?  Was that what Schiff was talking about?

FunkedUp:
If a robber broke into your home and was coming at you with a knife (and you had a gun) would you preempt his attack by shooting him?

He has already committed an act of aggression.

FunkedUp:
A preventive attack would consist of you deciding to use violence against this individual before he even gave an indication that he was going to rob you. In short, preemptive = attacking in anticipatory self defense and preventive = attacking before a threat materializes.

Sounds like equivocation to me.  Very subjective.  The former relies on knowing intent.  Intent is unknowable.

FunkedUp:
The "liberty movement" is a movement that attempts to move away (even if just slightly) from the current status quo and towards a pure market economy. Rothbard used a great analogy by coining "the freedom train." He said that he was conducting the train and driving it towards freedom. Anyone that wanted to hop on for the ride to freedom was welcome, and anyone that wanted to hop off at any point was welcome. Anyone that wants to take the freedom train (even just one stop) towards freedom is part of liberty movement - unless they start to obstruct the agenda once the train goes past their stop.

So the liberty movement includes people who are for school vouchers, until we have school vouchers, then they become statists, even though they hold the same opinion.  Likewise, the liberty movement includes people who are for minimal federal government, until the federal government collapses, and then they become ideological statists, even though they haven't changed their opinion one whit.

I'd avoid Rothbard on libertarianism.  He was good on some history and class analysis, and obviously was a very capable economist.  But as a libertartian thinker, I think some of his ideas were not only counterproductive, but contradictory, or indefensible logically (see above).  He took a lot of "liberties" with libertarianism.

FunkedUp:
Nope, I'm just guessing.

I'll let you in on a well known secret.  If you ask me direct questions, I will try to give you a direct answer.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 206
Points 3,855

liberty student:
This stuff ^^^ is why Schiffism can be dangerous when conflated with actual economics. Next we'll be hearing that Rothbard or Mises were not authorities because they didn't have "skin in the game". As though economics is the domain of investors, and not every living human being.

Unfortunately, I have no idea what "Schiffism" is.  Schiff interacts with the economy for a living and has studied Austrian economics all his life, hence he is infinitely more knowledgeable than, say, yourself.  He predicts economic downturns down to the smallest detail; you write rants (apparently, for a living) about things like there being no such thing as a citizen.  He is a successful economist and businessman; you are a blogger.  Do you see the difference?

I have no idea what has prompted the recent anti-Schiff backlash, and I don't know why Libertarians are suddenly turning on their own kind.  I think there are some people who are just afraid of success.

I guess they'd have a lot less to complain about.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,113
Points 60,515
Esuric replied on Tue, Dec 21 2010 4:45 AM

Unfortunately, I have no idea what "Schiffism" is.  Schiff interacts with the economy for a living and has studied Austrian economics all his life, hence he is infinitely more knowledgeable than, say, yourself.  He predicts economic downturns down to the smallest detail; you write rants (apparently, for a living) about things like there being no such thing as a citizen.  He is a successful economist and businessman; you are a blogger.  Do you see the difference?

All of this is entirely immaterial when it comes to economic theory, and he's not a successful economist (he's not an economist at all). The most successful businessman and investor can be, and usually are, economic Neanderthals (see Warren Buffet). The only things that matter, when it comes to economics as a social science, are facts and logic. The businessman and the economist do two very different things.

Now, some of the things Peter says are simply false, misleading, or poorly reasoned. For example, his prediction of future Chinese economic dominance is simply nonsensical and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Austrian insights, such as the coordination/calculation argument. His argument is that China "produces things" and therefore has a structurally sound economy. Now, it's true that China produces things that Americans will no longer produce, but only because America has moved on and innovated into other, more capital intensive industries. In other words, there have been natural changes in dynamic comparative advantages (though, there have also been some changes in the pattern of production caused by arbitrary interventions. In this respect, Peter is correct, but he often fails to make the distinction). Additionally, China also produces empty ghost cities and super-malls. Production is not the measure of economic success; warranted production is (we must differentiate between investment and malinvestment, or what is also known as "conspicuous production).

Conversely, America is doomed, according to Schiff, because "it doesn't produce anything." This is simply false. American production peaked in 2007 before the crises (a global maximum), and is still the center of innovation and entrepreneurship (China is merely an imitator in many respects. Of course, you could point to a counter example, but this would be an exception, and not the rule). Next, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a current account deficit, not only because it's met with a corresponding capital account surplus, but also because it's often better to buy from someone else than to produce it on your own. In other words, cooperation is always more efficient relative to isolationism/self-sufficiency (Ricardo's law of comparative costs). A trade deficit is only a bad thing when it's arbitrary and forced, and there's nothing wrong with being the world's largest creditor nation and/or the world's largest debtor nation. America was the world's largest creditor nation before the great depression. Again, Peter often fails to stress these points/distinctions.

But the most problematic statement, which he continuously repeats, is that China is freer or more capitalistic than the U.S. This is simply absurd at face value, considering that China is still run by the CCP, which (a) is the biggest human rights violator in the world, and (b) still centrally plans much of the Chinese economy.The Index of Economic Freedom ranks China as the 140th freest economy, while America holds the #8 slot.

I have no idea what has prompted the recent anti-Schiff backlash, and I don't know why Libertarians are suddenly turning on their own kind.  I think there are some people who are just afraid of success.

My biggest problem with Peter Schiff is that he's seen as the ultimate authority on Austrian economics. People conflate his own personal views with Austrian economics in general. An Austrian economist would find much of his statements agreeable, but, as I've demonstrated, many of the things he says are simply false and contradict parts of Austrian economics (some of which is really just mainstream economic doctrine). As far as hyperinflation is concerned, it's a possibility, and that's all that can really be said (there are too many factors at play there).

I think the biggest problem here is how Smiling Dave is conducting himself. He's completely incoherent and combative.

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 340
Points 6,230

I do agree with many of the criticisms of Schiff here, but I still think he deserves a lot of credit for getting lay people interested in economics.  He's on the radio 10 hours a week, and IMO does a great job of making the "dismal science" seem interesting, despite his occasionally-shaky theory.  I really wish that a Murphy or a Block would make themselves as visible as Schiff, because then I'd be listening to their podcasts at work instead since their exposition of Austrian theory is so superior.  (BTW, are there any other Austrians who do regular radio shows/podcasts?)

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 519
Points 9,645
jmorris84 replied on Tue, Dec 21 2010 8:20 AM

Liberty Student still defending a position about something he knows against Peter Schiff that he still hasn't clearly defined? Not surprising.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Tue, Dec 21 2010 8:43 AM

FleetCenturion:
Unfortunately, I have no idea what "Schiffism" is.  Schiff interacts with the economy for a living and has studied Austrian economics all his life, hence he is infinitely more knowledgeable than, say, yourself.  He predicts economic downturns down to the smallest detail; you write rants (apparently, for a living) about things like there being no such thing as a citizen.  He is a successful economist and businessman; you are a blogger.  Do you see the difference?

Aside from the hyperlinks I put behind a couple of your statements, I'd just like to say this: as I understand it, we all interact with the economy for a living.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 3 (107 items) 1 2 3 Next > | RSS