Although Schiff does have enough (barely) charisma, he doesn’t seem all that Austrian to me. I probably shouldn’t say that since I haven’t read his books, but judging off watching him on tv, he doesn’t seem to explain the whole Austrian story. He talks a lot about how we need to start manufacturing 'more stuff" which is the sort of language you hear from Lou Dobbs. He does point out the FED as the culprit, so thats good, but I have little to no idea on where he stands on things outside of interest rates are too low and that business regulation is harmful. But he is seen as a credible person to have on shows in in the mainstream media and he handles himself well, and is entertaining enough.
But it would be great if the Austrian school had our own version of Nick Naylor
I think part of the reason he dosen’t explain the whole austrian theory is because he dosen’t have enough time on tv and he’s always getting interrupted or laughed at by idiots like this. Overall I think Peter Schiff is good for the layman to understand why we’re in the current crises.
On the tv shows he usually doesn’t get much time to really give his point, and as you note, he usually gets laughed at.
But you can see him in longer stuff, now with his senate campaign, where he’s able to put his views on many things. Overall, I’ve liked what he’s said.
Also, he has a video blog you can check out as well.
“there is a lot of focus on ‘making stuff’ which I think is a bit misleading.”
I like Schiff, but I totally agree with what Joe is saying here. If I’m not mistaken, artificially low interest rates cause the business cycle by lengthening the structure of production, NOT by increasing consumption (although that may occur, too).
the business cycle by lengthening the structure of production, NOT by increasing consumption
The Business cycle relies on lengthening of the structure of production without simultaneous reduction in consumption. Capital (real material wherwithal) should be redirected FROM consumption (by people saving their money, not consuming with it) to investments which lengthen the structure of production. When fiat money is created to support the lengthening of production and people do not forego consumption to reserve capital to support the production, that is where the business cycle comes from.
So… you need real savings or a level of consumption that is below the rate of capital & wealth creation in order to support the commensurate lengthening of the structure of production. Otherwise you get the business cycle.
I think it has more to do with malinvestment than overextension of production and its consequent eating away at the ‘subsistence fund’. You can support an extended process of production by forced savings, but malinvestment will always produce unsupportable projects.
I think Dr. Maltsev did a good job too. I think this might have been his first televised event. Dr. Woods is pretty prolific with his appearances but it is nice to see other fellows from the LvMI on the news. I hope this helps sales of Requiem for Marx. It’s a wonderful book.
I still think he cries too much about the Constitution.
Of course, us anarchists might think that. However, from the viewpoint that undoubtably many viewers of the Fox Business Channel share, Argumentum Ad Constitution is legitimate and meaningful.
I remember Lysander Spooner saying something along the lines that regardless of how he feels about the Constitution (No Treason…), one can use it to argue against those who profess to be bound by it.
Am I the only one here who actually likes Glenn Beck? Granted, I’m an anarcho-capitalist now so I disagree with him on many points, including his Constitution fetish, but Glenn Beck represents something important to me. He filled the void when my partisan beliefs were first shattered by George Bush’s incompetence and his show set me down the right path. He represents the first steps of my re-education. I may have largely stopped watching his show or reading his newsletters, having moved on to this site, but I still like Glenn Beck and believe his heart is in the right place, if nothing else. He’s a natural ally, minarchist though he is. He’s changed his opinions a lot over the years and I hope that his introduction to Hayek leads him further and further into Austrian economics, as my introduction to Ron Paul was for me.
