Lately, Peter has caught a lot of flak on the forums. The main crimes seem to be:
He went to a dinner that he was paid to attend.
Lewrockwell.com hasn’t had an article of his in almost 2 whole months.
He is a fool, an idiot, and other synonyms indicating his lack of intelligence.
He introduced concepts that have nothing to do with AE, such as the trade deficit. Indeed, praxeology does not recognize trade deficits.
He is an embarrasment to AE.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.