In defense of Peter Schiff

Miscellaneous General
21

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.

22

“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”

23

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.”

24

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?

25

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.

26

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.

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.

27

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?

28

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.

29

How did you draw this conclusion?

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

This is an opinion only. It’s unprovable.

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.

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

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?

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

30

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.

31

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.

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.

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.

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?

32

Where did I gripe about this? Source please?

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.

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?

33

Debate started here

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/peter-schiff-debate-closed-public-debate/17152

34

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.

35

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

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

He has already committed an act of aggression.

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

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.

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.

36

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.

37

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.

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.

38

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?)

39

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

40

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.