http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRYk4PobHx4
They get into some pretty heavy dialogue. I need your help, who’s right and who’s wrong? And why? They both seem to think they are right. But the discussion is very civil, I love it.
Peter Schiff versus a Fredrick Douglass wannabe, Black Panther supporting, “prominent member” of the DSA, talking about the economy. Gee. I wonder who is right.
I have a generally good impression of FD as a freedom-fighter and self-made man from reading one of his autobiographies. What do you mean when you stick “black panther” right next to his name?
West’s argument just goes to show that it is socialism, and not the free market, that can only work as intended if all men are angels.
Also, just imagine what would have happened if child labour had been outlawed worldwide in the year 1500, with effective enforcement. The result would probably have been the extinction of man.
That is quite an interesting point, Astrippus. I think I should think on that quite a bit and see what conclusions should be drawn.
Tom Woods draws the conclusions quite clearly in what is probably the best introduction to sound economic thinking I’ve ever heard…
(child labor comes in at 12:03)
“Peter Schiff versus a Fredrick Douglass wannabe, Black Panther supporting, “prominent member” of the DSA, talking about the economy. Gee. I wonder who is right.”
Come on John, name calling is not going to accomplish anything. Its not productive. Your Tom Woods link is very good though. At the very least, Cornel West was very civil. I think with enough time, someone like Peter Schiff or Lew Rockwell could bring him to our side. If facts are facts, noone can argue with facts. They only start to debate and argue when the facts are not very clear.
Depends on your definition of the word. I would argue it certainly can be. And technically I didn’t call him any names. I simply provided an accurate description of him. Sure the first is a matter of opinion, but I’m not sure there is anyone who would deny he looks like Fredrick Douglass (and I seriously doubt that is an accident), and the latter two are undeniable facts…the man is a supporter of the Black Panther Party, and he is a prominent member of the Democratic Socialists of America. He’s the Honorary Chair, for crying out loud.
If that’s “name-calling”, I would say we’ve devolved even more than I thought.
In my opinion that should be a given. I’m not in the practice of offering kudos to people who do something I think should be common behavior. That’s like saying “well, at the very least, the mother did feed her baby.”
You’re much more optimistic than me, my friend. But even supposing you’re right…you have to consider two things.
-
How much time are we talking? Even if I were to concede it was possible to get our socialist friend here to become at the very least a free-market minarchist, how long would that take? And what would the opportunity cost of that be? How many gold coins are you going to leave on the ground while spending all your time trying to pry this single one up? As Thomas Sowell said, “at what price?”
-
Even supposing this (in my consideration) racist were to become convinced of the free-market reality, what in the world would make you think he would admit it…let alone preach it? Again, as Sowell noted, people like this have far too much invested, and far more at stake, in this whole class/race warfare racket. And they’re specialized in it to a point at which there’s really nothing else they can do. Seriously, read West’s resume. There is virtually no way that man could make a living (outside of working at McDonald’s) without having “race” and victimology in his life. You hear people all the time walk around talking about how they are colorblind. Nearly everyone in the country could get along with their lives just fine without ever having to discuss or even mention race or class. But that is this man’s entire livelihood. Hell, it’s his entire life. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for him to “come around.”
You obviously haven’t met near enough leftists.
“If that’s “name-calling”, I would say we’ve devolved even more than I thought.”
Calling him a wannbe is not productive. Come on, you know what I’m talking about. Hit people with the facts only, don’t waste our time with name calling. That’s one of the things that impressed me so much with Lewrockwell.com. Is they stuck only with the facts and didn’t get into the unproductive parts of debate. That is how lewrockwell.com won me over so quickly. I was amazed by the caliber of the people who write there and their incredible knowledge.
I guess I am more optimistic, I do believe Cornel could be won over. he even said, he wished they had more time to talk. I really believe he is just off on a few foundations. Being a little off on your foundations can lead to so many misunderstandins and lead you in the wrong direction.
Don’t get me wrong, overall I like LRC, and do read it…but it doesn’t sound like you’ve read enough of it.
Right, so he could continue to tell Schiff how wrong he was. You didn’t think he meant so that he could hear more of Schiff’s points, did you?
It can also make you a lost cause. It’s much better to be off on a few ancillary specifics, than entire foundations.
“It’s much better to be off on a few ancillary specifics, than entire foundations.”
You’re right. But, it can be corrected. And once his foundations are corrected, alot of his other opinions will be corrected.
And we come full circle.
Again, at what price…and ultimately, to what end? (Scroll up 4 posts to find the answer.)
they are talking about this great deabte on this forum as well:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x629255
"Peter Schiff should be asked to prove what he is saying. When did we ever have a truly free market? And how did people do then. The world did not start in 1929 or in 1932. In fact, we had regular severe recessions during the period prior to the formation of what we now call the Federal Reserve. The recession or depression of 1893 brought on the entire populist movement and eventually Teddy Roosevelt’s trust busting.
And never in the history of the world did working people and the poor do as well as they did in the 1950s and 1960s in the US – the period in which we had the highest taxes on the rich and strong regulations of the markets.
Peter Schiff does not know what he is talking about. We got into economic difficulty when Greenspan applied his free-market, Ayn-Rand-inspired theories at the Fed."
Just as a sidenote, the guy who posted that has a picture of John Edwards as his avatar. I think that says it all.
Seriously, if this stuff was coming from anywhere else I would think it was satire:
If we bomb Europe and Japan back to the stone ages tomorrow I’m pretty sure we could double taxes and still have a thriving economy. He’s thinking correlation is causation. We also had a big Civil Rights movement at the same time, maybe that caused our economy to do so well. Also, we have way more regulations today than in 1950.
By the time you use to turn one HC-socialist to the free markets, you could have turned 5 free market-leaning people to Mises. This is the opportunity cost on debating and spreading the message.
“By the time you use to turn one HC-socialist to the free markets, you could have turned 5 free market-leaning people to Mises. This is the opportunity cost on debating and spreading the message.”
Either way, Asutrian Economists going down to occupy protesters is very entertaining. And talking to people like Cornel is entertaining as well. Especially on TV in front of a national audience. I love how people like Schiff keep their cool, even when other people seem to get real angry. I don’t think I could control myself as well as he does in front of everyone like that and keep a cool head.
Yes, it truly is entertaining. I’m not against Schiff going to the OWS, but our main focus should not be in HC-socialists.
I think he should’ve avoided going into the discussion of child labor, by saying that even if we need laws against it, it is neither here nor there about the behavior of banks.
It’d the same as if we are talking about legalizing marijuana and someone saying: “how free do you want drugs to be? Remember the Opium Wars in China. It wrecked that country and was used by the greedy to rape and pillage.”
I think we should all address that we have the same goal: to fix the banking system. But that needn’t be based on an assumption about free markets. Because it brings the whole discussion in: who will build the roads, etc. When really you want to focus on what the protests are about.
What’s really insane is how little anyone knows about the Federal Reserve and its actions. I saw a link in another post where someone asked michael moore what he thought about the Fed and he just responded that there are “bigger” problems.