[VIDEO] Cornel West vs. Peter Schiff on Anderson Cooper

[Zatch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpcteDgMZ1c

[low preference guy]

another "intellectual" destroying Princeton University's name. well done.

[RileyE104]

Great discussion IMO. I like West but of course I'm in Peter's camp.

[ClayTrainor]

I'm gonna need popcorn for this one!

[bluesc]

Every time I hear "social justice", I puke.

[Cutlerzzz]

Honestly, kind of disappointing. Schiff did not lose the debate or anything, but he could have embarrassed this guy if he played his cards right. He got off to a bad start by making it sound like the banks should not have been responsible for their own decisions, when he should have made it clear that bailouts are horribly wrong and he was against them. He also need a better explanation as to how it was that the market got rid of child labor before child labor laws, and how unions did not create weekends.

[WarNoMore]

Every time I hear "social justice", I puke.

Ditto. Actually I'm more concerned than I am nauseous. I think people are just begging to be conned and enslaved when they talk about social justice or equality or solidarity or other buzz words. A smooth talking con artist will gladly use their language to take their life, liberty, and property away from them.

[Xenophage]

Peter Schiff is super smart but MAN does he like to talk over people!

All I can do watching these sorts of debates is laugh.

[Jingles]

Peter needs to not interrupt so much. Its very good to be aggressive, but sometimes he is way too aggressive and doesn't let people finish their points and it turns into a shouting match. I like Peter but needs to sit back a little bit, listen, and then completely destroy the argument. He is always very good though.

[bluesc]

I can't take Schiff seriously when he puts all the blame on DC. He thinks those bankers in Wall Street don't influence the government to provide that environment for them to rob the average person? You think they have no influence over the federal reserve board? They are the federal reserve board.

If only those kids at OWS knew that.

[low preference guy]

I can't take Schiff seriously when he puts all the blame on DC. He thinks those bankers in Wall Street don't influence the government to provide that environment for them to rob the average person? You think they have no influence over the federal reserve board? They are the federal reserve board.

If only those kids at OWS knew that.

They would have no way of influencing if the government didn't regulate or if the Fed didn't exist. That's his point.

[Cutlerzzz]

He thinks those bankers in Wall Street don't influence the government to provide that environment for them to rob the average person?That's clearly not what he says. He says that the power all rests in the government, and that Wall Street cannot make them do anything. Not that Wall Street does not deserve any of the blame.

[bluesc]

They would have no way of influencing if the government didn't regulate or if the Fed didn't exist. That's his point.

But the government wouldn't be corrupt if the politicians weren't funded by those very banks. The banks would still get bailed out by Congress.

They are both at fault.

I am not the fucking 99%, but people really need to realize the problem isn't only DC.

[low preference guy]

But the government wouldn't be corrupt if the politicians weren't funded by those very banks. The banks would still get bailed out by Congress.

They are both at fault.

I am not the fucking 99%, but people really need to realize the problem isn't only DC.

The problem is DC, and the banks are part of DC.

[bluesc]

That's clearly not what he says. He says that the power all rests in the government, and that Wall Street cannot make them do anything. Not that Wall Street does not deserve any of the blame.

The power rests in the federal reserve, controlled by bankers. Bankers can make them do anything through the federal reserve.

[bluesc]

The problem is DC, and the banks are part of DC.

Exactly the problem. Wall Street has huge influence over DC. Why not blame them too?

[low preference guy]

Exactly the problem. Wall Street has huge influence over DC. Why not blame them too?

Whenever there are regulations, the people being regulated are going to play the game. The problem isn't the people being regulated. The problem is that regulation is legal.

[bluesc]

Whenever there are regulations, the people being regulated are going to play the game. The problem isn't the people being regulated. The problem is that regulation is legal.

No argument here.

Wall Street lobby Congress to play that game. They are all at fault.

[Guitarzan]

No argument here.

Wall Street lobby Congress to play that game. They are all at fault.


You're missing the point. Why does Wall Street lobby Washington at all? Because Washington has the power to (unconstitutionally) dole out favors.

Take away that power, and you take away the incentive to lobby.

[Sola_Fide]

Great discussion IMO. I like West but of course I'm in Peter's camp.

Why do you like West? He is economically illiterate. Schiff owned him.

[ClayTrainor]

Does anyone have a clue what this guy is trying to say... (posted on another forum, in response to this video)


Also, if you could theoretically have your day in court against the perpetrators of these economic crimes, you could try them successfully for sedition at least. There is a lot of people who have done Fed time for sedition for much less.

Peter was defending Credit Default Swapping, something that never should have been legal in the first place. A law that was pushed through by people who were not even elected government officials, a lot of them were appointed. Creating hundreds of jobs, while financially crippling hundreds of thousands, hardly counts as a good deed in my book. As I have stated numerous times in this thread, I see no difference in between the financial system, and the government at this point in time.

[revrsethecurse04]

No argument here.

Wall Street lobby Congress to play that game. They are all at fault.

Under a free market system, would you argue that Wall Street would spend capitol lobbying in support of programs in DC if we had a limited republic. If you owned a business, would you flush your money down the drain?

Schiff has an argument that is unflappable, sure they can be blamed, but what does that blame get you? If I'm in the business of making money, and I can spend money to make money, I will do that. Schiff argues that instead of spending money in DC to regulate, control, and artificially manipulate the economy we spend money in productive ventures. Ones which prop up the economy, employ the 99%, and propel progress as a society.

To argue to the contrary comes off as extremely ignorant, yet that point does not resonate with the average American. We readily accept theories such as Moore's law when it comes to computing, with proof that computing power doubling exponentially. However, we fail to make the simple connection to compromise in the sacrifice of our liberties. If I give up my liberties half of the time to honor the time tested method of compromise, how long until I wake up and realize that I have forsaken that which makes me an American, and wind up with no liberties and am completely dependent on government.

[bluesc]

You're missing the point. Why does Wall Street lobby Washington at all? Because Washington has the power to dole out favors.

Take away that power, and you take away the incentive to lobby.

I'm not missing the point. The Congress is still there, backed by banking interests. Do you really think they are going to let themselves be burned so easily?

You need the approval of Congress to do anything about it, and by extension the approval of the bankers.

Not so easy.. Unless you're going to make it a not-so-peaceful revolution.

[low preference guy]

Why do you like West? He is economically illiterate. Schiff owned him.

Cool hair?

[Sola_Fide]

Does anyone have a clue what this guy is trying to say... (posted on another forum, in response to this video)

He is trying to conflate the market with government. This is the tactic of every Marxist minded thinker. Schiff was exactly right to lay the blame at the feet of government policy. Sometimes I see some of us waffling on our free market principles when we engage in corporation-bashing. There are some things that we agree on with left-minded philosophy but there are some points where we have to diverge and remain principled.

[Sola_Fide]

Cool hair?

Fair enough. Fros are tight.

[Cutlerzzz]

I'm not missing the point. The Congress is still there, backed by banking interests. Do you really think they are going to let themselves be burned so easily?

You need the approval of Congress to do anything about it, and by extension the approval of the bankers.

Not so easy.. Unless you're going to make it a not-so-peaceful revolution.Banking interest have no inherent power over congress. Congress is fully capable of telling them off; Congress created the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, Fannie and Freddie, TARP, and they could abolish them in a day if they wanted. Banks cannot force congress to do anything. Congress can basically do whatever they want at this point.

Schiff is saying that while the banks are wrong to ask for favors, that it is the governments fault for having this insane power to pick winners and losers in the first place.

[Cutlerzzz]

Sometimes I see some of us waffling on our free market principles when we engage in corporation-bashing.I cannot rep this enough.

[Cutlerzzz]

He also need a better explanation as to how it was that the market got rid of child labor before child labor laws.For example, tell them that only 2% of kids aged 10-16 were in the workforce when child labor was actually banned in 1938. That would end that discussion.

[bluesc]

Banking interest have no inherent power over congress. Congress is fully capable of telling them off; Congress created the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, Fannie and Freddie, TARP, and they could abolish them in a day if they wanted. Banks cannot force congress to do anything. Congress can basically do whatever they want at this point.

Schiff is saying that while the banks are wrong to ask for favors, that it is the governments fault for having this insane power to pick winners and losers in the first place.

No inherent power? The federal reserve can scare them into shape pretty quickly. I'm not about to get into conspiracy theories here, but the bankers have a lot at stake.

Of course the Congress has the power, but will they use it? No. Do they want to abolish them? No.

Again, I'm not arguing with the fact that DC is at fault. I'm arguing that Wall Street is at fault too.

[Cutlerzzz]

No inherent power? The federal reserve can scare them into shape pretty quickly. I'm not about to get into conspiracy theories here, but the bankers have a lot at stake.

Of course the Congress has the power, but will they use it? No. Do they want to abolish them? No.

Again, I'm not arguing with the fact that DC is at fault. I'm arguing that Wall Street is at fault too.Schiff did say that Wall Street is wrong, just not to blame for the collapse.

The Federal Reserve is a part of the government. The fact is, Congress does have this power. It is Congress's fault for letting anyone influence them, when they have this monopoly power.

[bluesc]

Schiff did say that Wall Street is wrong, just not to blame for the collapse.

The Federal Reserve is a part of the government. The fact is, Congress does have this power. It is Congress's fault for letting anyone influence them, when they have this monopoly power.

Yep, it would be nice if everyone in DC was like Ron. They are not. That is why I am making the point that it is not so easy to just fix the problem when they are so heavily influenced by the bakers. When so many in DC are banker shills, the banks have plenty of power in Congress.

Bankers influence Congress to screw the little guy for their benefit. They are at fault too. They deserve anger directed their way.

[Sola_Fide]

Hey Clay!

I'm pretty sure your sig quote was originally said by Joe Sobran. (I think)

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

another "intellectual" destroying Princeton University's name. well done.

pseudo intellectual*

[WarNoMore]

Yep, it would be nice if everyone in DC was like Ron. They are not. That is why I am making the point that it is not so easy to just fix the problem when they are so heavily influenced by the bakers. When so many in DC are banker shills, the banks have plenty of power in Congress.

Bankers influence Congress to screw the little guy for their benefit. They are at fault too. They deserve anger directed their way.

They do deserve anger, but their real opportunity for change is at the ballot box, not protesting outside of wall street. If they don't want politicians who are bought and paid for by the banks and special interests, don't vote for them. It seems some don't want to vote for an honest man like Ron Paul, though. How are they supposed to change the one thing they do want to change(getting corporate control out of politics) If they don't even want to vote for the only presidential candidate not bought and paid for by those corporatists?

They don't agree with him on a couple issues? Like what? Abortion? Get serious. Do they realize the danger we're in? that's not an issue to be basing a vote on, unless the candidates are equal on the important issues. The social safety net? If they checked out his budget plan the 1 trillion dollar cuts does not take away from social security and medicare, in fact it increases social security iirc. The main thing he wants to cut out is the corporate welfare. no bail outs. no subsidies. no regulations in favor of big business.

Speaking of regulations, that's one that I hear them bring up a lot. They don't like that he wants to deregulate. Really? Do they know how many regulations are already in place? Are they the ones who predicted this collapse? What exactly do these people know about the business cycle and economics? What do they know about the federal reserve? They weren't the ones warning about what was going to happen in the housing market, but they think they know better than him? So what regulation do they want? What's their plan? More importantly how are they going to implement that plan. They don't have a candidate that would implement what they want, so they have no way to change anything in 2012 if they aren't willing to vote for honest men even if they aren't identical ideologically with them.

[bluesc]

They do deserve anger, but their real opportunity for change is at the ballot box, not protesting outside of wall street. If they don't want politicians who are bought and paid for by the banks and special interests, don't vote for them. It seems some don't want to vote for an honest man like Ron Paul, though. How are they supposed to change the one thing they do want to change(getting corporate control out of politics) If they don't even want to vote for the only presidential candidate not bought and paid for by those corporatists?

They don't agree with him on a couple issues? Like what? Abortion? Get serious. Do they realize the danger we're in? that's not an issue to be basing a vote on, unless the candidates are equal on the important issues. The social safety net? If they checked out his budget plan the 1 trillion dollar cuts does not take away from social security and medicare, in fact it increases social security iirc. The main thing he wants to cut out is the corporate welfare. no bail outs. no subsidies. no regulations in favor of big business.

Speaking of regulations, that's one that I hear them bring up a lot. They don't like that he wants to deregulate. Really? Do they know how many regulations are already in place? Are they the ones who predicted this collapse? What exactly do these people know about the business cycle and economics? What do they know about the federal reserve? They weren't the ones warning about what was going to happen in the housing market, but they think they know better than him? So what regulation do they want? What's their plan? More importantly how are they going to implement that plan. They don't have a candidate that would implement what they want, so they have no way to change anything in 2012 if they aren't willing to vote for honest men even if they aren't identical ideologically with them.

You assume I support OWS. I don't. I think they are a waste of time.

I wasn't speaking in support of OWS, I was just refusing to justify Wall Street's actions.

[zade]

You're missing the point. Why does Wall Street lobby Washington at all? Because Washington has the power to (unconstitutionally) dole out favors.

Take away that power, and you take away the incentive to lobby.

Washington didn't spring up from the abyss with all this "power," after which banks and corporations realized they could use it to their advantage. Those powers are not at all independent from the elite financial interests. They're not playing the game, they made the game. The modern economic system and political situation developed at the behest of one and the same elite. To say that all we have to do is get rid of government power is like responding to the threat of arsonists by saying "just get rid of fire!"

I feel this is the failure of the brand of libertarianism some of you subscribe to, that anything that doesn't have an official DC stamp on it is "not government" and therefore "good"

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I would love to see a series of youtube "debates" with Schiff and West. They could go sit at a Starbucks and debate 1-on-1 over coffee. This would be megaEpic!

<3 Schiff!

<3 West! (even if he is a big gov socie) :)

[Hospitaller]

cornells hair is a bird therefore peters argument is invalid

[ClayTrainor]

...

[ClayTrainor]

I would love to see a series of youtube "debates" with Schiff and West. They could go sit at a Starbucks and debate 1-on-1 over coffee. This would be megaEpic!

<3 Schiff!

<3 West! (even if he is a big gov socie) :)

Agreed. I don't love west, but he does seem very likable on an individual level, and like most devout leftists he utterly despises mass murder (war), so there's some agreement there.

The end of that interview made it seem like they were both very interested in continuing the conversation. Hopefully Peter sends him an invite for his radio show, for a nice hour long session or something. Would be great, my brotha! :)

[american.swan]

Peter Schiff is super smart but MAN does he like to talk over people!

All I can do watching these sorts of debates is laugh.

He has to. After years on TV, he knows how to get his two cents in.

[Rudeman]

A business or corporation will do what is in it's best interest. Wall Street was just exploiting government for their best interest, what Schiff is saying they shouldn't even have that option to use the government to benefit themselves.

If government didn't have the power to benefit Wall Street, Wall Street wouldn't be lobbying them. At least that's what I think Schiff is saying. That doesn't excuse Wall Street for doing it but in order to change things you need to address that the government has the power to pick winners or losers in the first place.

[pacelli]

What's with the sash around West's neck? Does he have a trach or something?

[vita3]

"I can't take Schiff seriously when he puts all the blame on DC. He thinks those bankers in Wall Street don't influence the government to provide that environment for them to rob the average person? You think they have no influence over the federal reserve board? They are the federal reserve board."

I agree. Schiff is way off the reservation here.

[Sola_Fide]

"I can't take Schiff seriously when he puts all the blame on DC. He thinks those bankers in Wall Street don't influence the government to provide that environment for them to rob the average person? You think they have no influence over the federal reserve board? They are the federal reserve board."

I agree. Schiff is way off the reservation here.

No way homey. Schiff is exactly right. The type of thinking in your post leads to greater and greater government controls on our life whereas Peter's ideas bring market regulations to bear upon life. That's what we want.

[vita3]

I never really liked Schiff, always thought he was just concerned about his own investment business.

[Sola_Fide]

I never really liked Schiff, always thought he was just concerned about his own investment business.

Peter Schiff explains free market economics better than most anyone alive today.

[vita3]

"Peter Schiff explains free market economics better than most anyone alive today'

That may be true, but he came off pretty poorly last night.

[Created4]

Yep, it would be nice if everyone in DC was like Ron. They are not. That is why I am making the point that it is not so easy to just fix the problem when they are so heavily influenced by the bakers. When so many in DC are banker shills, the banks have plenty of power in Congress.

Bankers influence Congress to screw the little guy for their benefit. They are at fault too. They deserve anger directed their way.

I think the problem here bluesc is that you seem to be equating "bankers" with "Wall Street." You raise valid points, but I think what Schiff is trying to say is that Washington created the Federal Reserve which gives the power to the "bankers." So it is government that assumed this power and gave it to the bankers. Directing anger to "Wall Street" and the 1% unfortunately includes honest capitalists like Schiff. That is his point. So they should go protest the Fed, or the Government.

[Created4]

"I can't take Schiff seriously when he puts all the blame on DC. He thinks those bankers in Wall Street don't influence the government to provide that environment for them to rob the average person? You think they have no influence over the federal reserve board? They are the federal reserve board."

I agree. Schiff is way off the reservation here.

"They are the federal reserve board." Exactly. And who created the Fed and gave them their power? Congress can end the Fed and return banking to a truly capitalist system with market checks and balances in place. Schiff and Ron Paul understand this, so I think you SHOULD take Schiff seriously.

[vita3]

Let's hear Schiff talk about Goldman Sachs & JP Morgan & how they influence Congress & at the same time control the FED & Treasury.

[green73]

Nice ass whoopin

[PaulConventionWV]

I can't take Schiff seriously when he puts all the blame on DC. He thinks those bankers in Wall Street don't influence the government to provide that environment for them to rob the average person? You think they have no influence over the federal reserve board? They are the federal reserve board.

If only those kids at OWS knew that.

Whatever. All corporations are greedy. That's what drives the markets. It really is all Washington's fault because they're supposed to maintain the rule of law. That's not Wall Street's job. Schiff knows that bankers on wall street influence the government, but why blame them when it's really government's fault for getting involved in crony capitalism? I guess you can blame them if you want, but it's no reason to criticize Schiff for trying to get to the root of the problem.

[jmdrake]

Honestly, kind of disappointing. Schiff did not lose the debate or anything, but he could have embarrassed this guy if he played his cards right. He got off to a bad start by making it sound like the banks should not have been responsible for their own decisions, when he should have made it clear that bailouts are horribly wrong and he was against them. He also need a better explanation as to how it was that the market got rid of child labor before child labor laws, and how unions did not create weekends.

Why should he need to "embarrass" this guy? Despite what you and others may think Cornell West is not our enemy. He was one of the first on the left to attack Obama over economic policies, keeping the Bush economic team and going with the banker bailouts. People bitch and moan about the term "social justice". Well what's happened to this country has been a grave injustice. We should never forget that. We should be trying to win West over to our way of thinking instead of blindly attacking him. It's time to get out of the fake left/right paradigm. I wish Alex Jones would have West and Schiff on his show at the same time and help them find common ground.

[PaulConventionWV]

No argument here.

Wall Street lobby Congress to play that game. They are all at fault.

There's nothing wrong with businessmen and bankers wanting to play the game. The blame doesn't rest on them because that's what we WANT them to do in a free market to provide more jobs. The real problem is government, and only government.

[trey4sports]

peter is the shit! God I hope he runs for something. Hell, dog catcher for all i care, i just want to watch him debate someone.

[KingRobbStark]

Holy shit West is an idiot. Princeston is infested with idiots.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

You can argue all you want about "who is at fault"

But the fact is Bankers, Capitalist, Wall Street goons, etc want to make money. Thats their soul purpose. They can make more money when they make deals with and partner with government. It comes down to power. Government ultimately has the power. You take govt out of the equation and banks are just like every other business, dependent on the patronage and confidence of the consumer. Once you allow the government offer its powers of violence to the big banks and corporations, that's when you get situations like we are in today.

[jason43]

I like West, no matter how off his views are, he seems very good natured and open to discussion. I'd like to see more people willing and open to have good discussion.

[zade]

He is trying to conflate the market with government. This is the tactic of every Marxist minded thinker. Schiff was exactly right to lay the blame at the feet of government policy.

You have to ask how and why the government got to be the way it did. How did the modern system develop, and who is controlling it now? Hint: it's not the voters. The government exists the way it does now BECAUSE the elite financial interests were involved the whole time. The powers that you want to get rid of are an expression of that influence. How do you expect to change the system without dealing with those who are in control of it? The system is THEIRS. Do you really expect banks and corporations to say "well i guess we have to stop controlling international politics now" cuz some people you like got elected? Well, things have gotten so complex that perhaps it is possible to wrestle the power away from them within the political framework that has developed. But either way these elite economic players are not the blameless creatures you think.


Sometimes I see some of us waffling on our free market principles when we engage in corporation-bashing.

What. Free. Market.

Government has been so totally intertwined in every stage through the process of industrialization, that it is totally inseparable from the structure of the modern economic system. If not for this fact, I guarantee you the economy would look much different than it does today. So no, there's no reason to defend the corporate form drenched in political stink

[FrankRep]

Great discussion IMO. I like West but of course I'm in Peter's camp.


Cornel West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornel_West) is an American philosopher, author, critic, actor, civil rights activist and prominent member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Cornel West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornel_West) is an American philosopher, author, critic, actor, civil rights activist and prominent member of the Democratic Socialists of America.


Because we shouldn't Like people if their ideas are different.

West is a good man. Just because he believes in big government doesn't mean I'm supposed to hate him. To lump him in with genocidal psychopathic globalists is just as bad as lumping all businessmen, whether Schiff or Buffet or "Joe Bob", together.

People are more than their ideas. Ideas can be changed.

[jmdrake]

Because we shouldn't Like people if their ideas are different.

West is a good man. Just because he believes in big government doesn't mean I'm supposed to hate him. To lump him in with genocidal psychopathic globalists is just as bad as lumping all businessmen, whether Schiff or Buffet or "Joe Bob", together.

People are more than their ideas. Ideas can be changed.

I just watched the video. +rep to you and +rep to Peter Schiff and Cornell West for having a civil and intelligent discussion where they both agreed on important key points. It's sad that so many hear are RPF are so into echo chambers that they can't even stomach someone with another perspective. West is not an "idiot" no matter what anyone here thinks. He sees what's going on better than anyone on the left. But he's still a product of Keynesian thinking. That just happens to be 90% of Americans. Really, how many in this movement had even heard of Austrian economics before Ron Paul? I certainly hadn't. The key that Schiff understands that West doesn't and I didn't is that partial deregulation is what caused the unbalance that led to this problem. Because of the FDIC, Glass Steagall was needed. When Glass Steigal was taken off that was called "deregulation". Removing Glass Steigal caused the financial system to go to hell. So Cornell West is right to be upset at that kind of "deregulation". (And for the record, Ron Paul voted against the repeal of Glass Steagall (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/23595.html)). But its impossible to cover everything someone needs to know about deregulation, government sponsored entities and moral hazard in a 10 minute interview/debate. If anything Schiff could have stressed more the things they agreed on before jumping off into areas of disagreement. Everyone can agree that the collusion between government and Wallstreet is a problem. So let's start there. I think Schiff and West could probably agree that Hank Paulson, Tim Geitner and Ben Bernanke should be criminally investigated and/or indicted. That's step one. People in public and the private sector who conspire to steal from the public should be punished for their theft. Once that has been sifted through it will become more plain what the cause of the theft was. (That's why we need to audit the Federal Reserve). Once that happens people can rationally discuss how to prevent the theft from happening again.

[Ekrub]

Peter needs to not interrupt so much. Its very good to be aggressive, but sometimes he is way too aggressive and doesn't let people finish their points and it turns into a shouting match. I like Peter but needs to sit back a little bit, listen, and then completely destroy the argument. He is always very good though.

On any other peter schiff interview I would agree with you however this one he did let West make his points and Schiff was actually interruped by West many times. I wish there was more discourse like this in our country though. Would go a long ways towards helping make the argument for libertarianism.

[matt0611]

Let's hear Schiff talk about Goldman Sachs & JP Morgan & how they influence Congress & at the same time control the FED & Treasury.

He has many times, have you ever listened to his show or watched the Schiff at OWS videos?

[jct74]

I just saw Huckabee on Cavuto's show a few minutes ago and he said Schiff will be a guest on his show tomorrow night along with Daniel Hannan. If you missed Huckabee's interview with Schiff a few weeks ago, it was a good one.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?318268-Video-Peter-Schiff-on-Huckabee-9-24-11

[jct74]

Yep, confirmed he will be on Huckabee tomorrow.
http://www.europac.net/events/dont_miss_peter_schiff_fox_news_%E2%80%A2_8pm

He will also be on Fox & Friends Monday morning.
http://www.europac.net/events/dont_miss_peter_schiff_fox_news_channe_%E2%80%A2_8 am

[Bosco Warden]

Peter needs to not interrupt so much. Its very good to be aggressive, but sometimes he is way too aggressive and doesn't let people finish their points and it turns into a shouting match. I like Peter but needs to sit back a little bit, listen, and then completely destroy the argument. He is always very good though.


Peter Schiff is super smart but MAN does he like to talk over people!

All I can do watching these sorts of debates is laugh.


I can't take Schiff seriously when he puts all the blame on DC. He thinks those bankers in Wall Street don't influence the government to provide that environment for them to rob the average person? You think they have no influence over the federal reserve board? They are the federal reserve board.

If only those kids at OWS knew that.

Hey, its CNN and its Anderson Cooper, they get to frame the whole debate. He was perfect.

Peter Schiff is a multi millionaire, West is a Liberal Novelty piece. nuf said.

[jmdrake]

Whenever there are regulations, the people being regulated are going to play the game. The problem isn't the people being regulated. The problem is that regulation is legal.

Schiff hit the nail on the head when he said the problem was partial deregulation. Repealing G.S. while leaving in the FDIC created a moral hazard. But you've got to be immersed in Austrian Economics to understand that. You can be extremely intelligent, like Cornell West is, and miss this point. I figured this out on my own a couple of years ago, but this is the first time I've heard anyone express it that clearly and directly. Schiff and West aren't as far apart as it seems on the surface. I think both would agree that collusion between D.C. and W.S. is the problem, but they put a different emphasis on who's really to blame for the collusion.

[Cutlerzzz]

Why should he need to "embarrass" this guy?
Because West was advocating authoritarian policies and blatent falsehoods on a nationally televised debate. I somehow doubt that most of CNN's audience knows enough about the Depression to question West when he claims that free marketeering in the 30s caused the depression. Schiff could have done a much better job on most of those points.

[seapilot]

The line was drawn in the sand when the vote came for the TARP bailout. Did congress side with the people, no. They do not bite the hand that feeds them. Follow the money. The banks (meaning JP morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs) own the congress. They work for them not the people. When banks have the power to create money out of nothing they can buy anything and anyone they want.

Today's congress getting rid of the Fed is like an employee firing their boss. Yes in theory they can get rid of the fed but we need a moral ethical congress to do it. There is no need for the Fed, we have a US treasury which at one time issued its own currency called a United States note.

[fatjohn]

West seems like a cool friendly guy with a lot of cognac. He also raised a good point that big corporations are not so much market dependent as small corporations. Could someone refute that one for me? Had this thought for a while now. If you completely deregulate the market, what keeps one of the bigger companies in a large market, let's say a car company, from going into the bicycle business and using its earnings of the much larger car market to subsidize its bike branch and thus create a monopoly of the bicycle market without providing the best product for the least amount of effort. And later when monopoly in the small market is reached what keeps it from raising prices?

[eduardo89]

How the fuck is that fool a Princeton professor? How the fuck could a guy like that even be a professor at a community college?

[vita3]

West has called Obama out for having Goldman lobbyist as Chief of Staff @ Treasury

& Obam new Chief of Staff (Dailey) was just a JPMORGAN exec. Guy get's lots of credit for that in my book

Schiff needs to go a lot deeper than his normal "talking points"

Hope Cooper has them on next week for 20+ minutes

[low preference guy]

How the fuck is that fool a Princeton professor? How the fuck could a guy like that even be a professor at a community college?

News: Academia is a brainwashing center for the creation of leftist zombies.

[PierzStyx]

"Social justice" is just another term that is used to take your wealth, take your rights, and make you dependent on them.

[PierzStyx]

They are the federal reserve board..

Exactly. And where is the Fed headquartered? D.C.

[WarNoMore]

How the fuck is that fool a Princeton professor? How the fuck could a guy like that even be a professor at a community college?

He's not teaching economics. I'm sure he's qualified to teach whatever he's teaching. He seems like a smart man to me, just misguided. Well-intentioned, but economically ignorant.

[low preference guy]

He's not teaching economics. I'm sure he's qualified to teach whatever he's teaching. He seems like a smart man to me, just misguided. Well-intentioned, but economically ignorant.

Bernanke and Krugman, who know even less economics than this guy, did teach economics at Princeton.

[PierzStyx]

West seems like a cool friendly guy with a lot of cognac. He also raised a good point that big corporations are not so much market dependent as small corporations. Could someone refute that one for me? Had this thought for a while now. If you completely deregulate the market, what keeps one of the bigger companies in a large market, let's say a car company, from going into the bicycle business and using its earnings of the much larger car market to subsidize its bike branch and thus create a monopoly of the bicycle market without providing the best product for the least amount of effort. And later when monopoly in the small market is reached what keeps it from raising prices?

The key is there is a difference between regulate and "rules". When we talk about regulations we are talking about things like sugar quotas where the US protects a business that then allow it to turn around and charge you a higher price for a shoddier product. Rules about things like monopolies I think most, not all but most, would say are acceptable as they do not limit the market but how much the market can be seized by one business. Anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws work to keep buisnesses from dominating the market and in effect setting up their own quotas and protections.

[GreenBulldog]

But the government wouldn't be corrupt if the politicians weren't funded by those very banks. The banks would still get bailed out by Congress.

They are both at fault.

I am not the fucking 99%, but people really need to realize the problem isn't only DC.

Right. They are both at fault.

However, if you LIMIT GOVERNMENT, to lets say....THE CONSTITUTIONAL ONE....government wouldn't be big enough to intervene.

That's his point.


Let's hear Schiff talk about Goldman Sachs & JP Morgan & how they influence Congress & at the same time control the FED & Treasury.

Again, lets make government small so they wouldn't have the influence.

[GreenBulldog]

West seems like a cool friendly guy with a lot of cognac.

Too much cognac, apparently. He needs to put the liquor down and read "Human Action."

Oh, wait...I need to do that too!


Could someone refute that one for me? Had this thought for a while now. If you completely deregulate the market, what keeps one of the bigger companies in a large market, let's say a car company, from going into the bicycle business and using its earnings of the much larger car market to subsidize its bike branch and thus create a monopoly of the bicycle market without providing the best product for the least amount of effort.

What regulation keeps that big car company from going into the bicycle business? I think Toyota can start making bicycles if they wanted to. There has to be significant gains for any company to get into the business. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

I'm not sure how you create a monopoly without creating the best product for the least amount of effort. I'm not sure what you're trying to say either. Are you saying that since Toyota have more resources, it can easily beat out the small guy because Toyota can easily produce the best product at the best price? If so, the small guy will have to find capitol (investors) to compete. In a free market, there will be investors if the small guy truly have the best product. Why? Because investors want to make money too, so they'll invest in what they think is the best product.


And later when monopoly in the small market is reached what keeps it from raising prices?

Monopoly won't create high prices, at least not for long. When the monopolist raises prices, it incentivize competition. If the new competitor has 1% of the market and gets into a price war, the monopolist have to decrease 99% of the market he has to compete. That's a pretty big loss for them.


He also raised a good point that big corporations are not so much market dependent as small corporations.

I don't know about small companies being less market dependent than bigger ones. Doesn't it depend on the sector?

[AlexG]

Peter Schiff explains free market economics better than most anyone alive today.

That's what I love about Schiff he's a freaking pitbull but he knows his stuff. Just watch him outside debating/informing the OWS protesters, any other person would have gotten frustrated and quit but he kept at it.

[anaconda]

West seems like a very nice fellow but he obviously did not take Econ 1B as an undergraduate elective. Schiff owned him without even working up a sweat.

[ClayTrainor]

West seems like a very nice fellow but he obviously did not take Econ 1B as an undergraduate elective. Schiff owned him without even working up a sweat.

At the end it seemed like West was eager to continue the discussion. Both of them have radio shows. I really hope they set something up. Would be fun to listen to, and might open up a few minds as well.

[HOLLYWOOD]

http://ohalex.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cognac-0108-lg.jpg

[musicmax]

West seems like a cool friendly guy with a lot of cognac. He also raised a good point that big corporations are not so much market dependent as small corporations. Could someone refute that one for me? Had this thought for a while now. If you completely deregulate the market, what keeps one of the bigger companies in a large market, let's say a car company, from going into the bicycle business and using its earnings of the much larger car market to subsidize its bike branch and thus create a monopoly of the bicycle market without providing the best product for the least amount of effort. And later when monopoly in the small market is reached what keeps it from raising prices?

Google "predatory pricing". The theory is widespread but in practice it never works because as soon as the alleged "predator" raises its prices, conditions are once again favorable for competitors to enter the market.

One of the examples of alleged "predatory pricing" on Wikipedia is Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows. How'd that work out? We now have Chrome, Firefox, Opera, etc. etc. etc. Buy an iPad and you get Safari for free, but people still PAY MONEY for Mercury, Atomic, and other iOS browsers.

[musicmax]

http://ohalex.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cognac-0108-lg.jpg

Instead of coffee and cognac, West needs to have another "beer summit" with Obama and ask BHO about the bailouts and taking millions from Goldman Sachs.

[musicmax]

Speaking of cognac, last night I was at a wine & liquor tasting that featured Grand Marnier 150th Anniversary ("Cuvée Speciale Cent Cinquantenaire"), which is made with 50-year-old XO. If you have $200 to blow on a bottle of booze, this is the way to go. Unspeakably good.

[jmdrake]

West seems like a very nice fellow but he obviously did not take Econ 1B as an undergraduate elective. Schiff owned him without even working up a sweat.

:( You don't get it. What West was saying is what is taught in most economics classes. Schiff only sounds right to people who understand Austrian economics which is < 10% of the population. A "win" for Schiff isn't how much you or I praise him, but how much he can convince people who think like West to think a different way. West and Schiff weren't that far off. Schiff could have improved his performance by hammering home the point that Federal reserve and Fannie and Freddie are really private banks that just masquerade as public banks.

Edit: Please watch the Hayek v Keynes videos again. One of the main points of the videos is that despite being right, Hayek's views are not well known.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc&feature=relmfu

[jmdrake]

Because West was advocating authoritarian policies and blatent falsehoods on a nationally televised debate. I somehow doubt that most of CNN's audience knows enough about the Depression to question West when he claims that free marketeering in the 30s caused the depression. Schiff could have done a much better job on most of those points.

You're missing the point. Wouldn't it be better to win West over? He could have done that by looking more at points of agreement than trying to pick a fight on points of disagreement. Both West and Schiff agree that the bailouts were wrong. The disagreement was a quibble over whether the bailouts were more of fault of the private banks who demanded them or the government that gave into the demand. Schiff could have moved West closer to our side by stressing that the Federal reserver, Fannie and Freddie are all private banks.

[ClayTrainor]

Anderson Cooper is asked to comment on Peter Schiffs debate with Cornel West

Go to 3:15 for the relevant part...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jda8d9BjyiU

[Cutlerzzz]

You're missing the point. Wouldn't it be better to win West over? He could have done that by looking more at points of agreement than trying to pick a fight on points of disagreement. Both West and Schiff agree that the bailouts were wrong. The disagreement was a quibble over whether the bailouts were more of fault of the private banks who demanded them or the government that gave into the demand.I think that winning West over would be alot easier if Schiff actually pointed out that West was wrong about child labor and the depression with specifics.


Schiff could have moved West closer to our side by stressing that the Federal reserver, Fannie and Freddie are all private banks
They are not private banks.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I can't remember if it was Lew Rockwell or Tom Woods that wrote up a article on the over educated parasitic presumptuous entities that thrive to suck money out of incompetent charlatans of government in exchange for aloof advices/policies.

Cornell West: an over educated and biased case of ignorance.
Speaking of cognac, last night I was at a wine & liquor tasting that featured Grand Marnier 150th Anniversary ("Cuvée Speciale Cent Cinquantenaire"), which is made with 50-year-old XO. If you have $200 to blow on a bottle of booze, this is the way to go. Unspeakably good. I'm a wine guy,,, Opus and Cakebread, but I'll never turn down most California specials.