Mr. Schiff I respectfully disagree with you about cutting unemployment benefits. If we stop spending money on the wars, we could invest that money back into creating manufacturing jobs here in america and continue to give americans unemployment benefits until we get it off the ground.
Yep, it's the physical economy stupid, and that's what we have less and less of.
We get more and more fake, phoney, and vampiric blood sucking gamblers hacking and cheating and lying and stealing wall street economy of cheaters and thieves.
When the nation is run by a gaggle of thieves sucking billions and trillions out of thin air with wall street hyperactive speculation and trading and the FEd and the congress ganking the rest, while they both toss the physical economy overseas - WE'RE DONE!
The reason is not only the assets that would pour into the market should the Banks had gone bankrupt. Also, the deflationary effect on the whole monetary system would make money supply shrink, so money would appreciate. Those left with money would actually have more because, although we would have the same amount of dollar bills, they would have more value. And this money would be savings ready to create new and sane businesses that would create the employment people need.
what hes not telling you is when you sign up for unemployment, food stamps, your giving power of attorney, to get a privilege, you are their chattel property, you give up your rights voluntarily, see you sign a contract plain and simple, then you must perform to the contract, that is what they wanted all along, then they can pass what ever law they want, and you cant say nothing, you signed the contract.
@bobjman I am making philosophic point, not an economic one, for those not familiar with the English language. It is unethical to consider your fellow human being as a "resource", or as "capital" in the way collectivist central planners do..
Because the banks would be forced to liquidate their assets in bankruptcy. These sales would transfer capital to the new private owners. As it is currently, the banks and the Fed are sitting on HUGE balance sheets. They're keeping all that "capital" out of the market that would otherwise be transferred in bankruptcy sales.
@Ellipsis10 and for those people, do you see there are real work opportunities, or that corporations have squeezed them all down so it's "starve" or "do this job" or "work what's left of the system" ?
Schiff- Please explain why there would be more capital in the private sector if the banks were not bailed out? While I understand the long term effects of the bailouts of raised taxes or inflation, I do not see how there would be more capital in the private sector after asset values were reduced because of the non-bailout "fire-sales" that would have occurred.
Schiff- Please explain why there would be more capital in the private sector if the banks were not bailed out? While I understand the long term effects of the bailouts of raised taxes or inflation, I do not see how there would be more capital in the private sector after asset values were reduced because of the non-bailout "fire-sales" that would have occurred.
Interest should be outlawed and money should be worth it's base metal value... but then everyone would have to work and money would only be worth what you could make out of the metal itself!
the banks wouldn't have cared if their liabilities went bust. they had their money printed up for free. economic melt down? they would have been laughing. they got their socialist in.
@whatabitch99 i don't know what you mean. the bail out wasn't printed by the fed, it was a big Iou to the taxpayer, printed up on bank bonds. The FED didn't design or want the bail out.. if they had to substantiate the switching of the banks liabilities to the tax payer, well what else are they supposedly doing? i'm sure the FEDs were with the precipitation of the market collapse. they did it on purpose, but they didn't expect paulison to do what he did.
I appreciate the enthusiasm mr82769, but you're un-educated on the subject of anarcho-capitalism.
I will not argue the point about army, police and courts being necessary. My point is that we shouldn't rely on Government to get them. We can have those things without Government. If you're curious, look up Murray Rothbard.
The situation in Africa is due to HEAVY government involvement. That "extraction" IS taxes. In a place with no government, there would be no taxes, and people won't be poor.
@nVei06 - peter is referring to the RMB which is the currency code for China's currency - the Renminbi. You're right though, he tends to use a lot of advanced terms for the layperson.
Collectivists ideas he advocates are UNJUST: they treat people as a societal RESOURCE, not individuals with rights of their own. ("..human CAPITAL" ???!?! wtf)
A kid born in Sudan has the same RIGHTS as a kid born in the Netherlands, or South Dakota. Every person requires that things be produced in order to survive. The question is: are they to obtain those things by their own work & voluntary cooperation of others, OR by FORCE and coercion?
We have a moral responsibility to treat others with the respect of ASKING for their help, not DEMANDING with death threats as mr82769 advocates.
Mr. Schiff I respectfully disagree with you about cutting unemployment benefits. If we stop spending money on the wars, we could invest that money back into creating manufacturing jobs here in america and continue to give americans unemployment benefits until we get it off the ground.
Yep, it's the physical economy stupid, and that's what we have less and less of.
We get more and more fake, phoney, and vampiric blood sucking gamblers hacking and cheating and lying and stealing wall street economy of cheaters and thieves.
When the nation is run by a gaggle of thieves sucking billions and trillions out of thin air with wall street hyperactive speculation and trading and the FEd and the congress ganking the rest, while they both toss the physical economy overseas - WE'RE DONE!
The reason is not only the assets that would pour into the market should the Banks had gone bankrupt. Also, the deflationary effect on the whole monetary system would make money supply shrink, so money would appreciate. Those left with money would actually have more because, although we would have the same amount of dollar bills, they would have more value. And this money would be savings ready to create new and sane businesses that would create the employment people need.
what hes not telling you is when you sign up for unemployment, food stamps, your giving power of attorney, to get a privilege, you are their chattel property, you give up your rights voluntarily, see you sign a contract plain and simple, then you must perform to the contract, that is what they wanted all along, then they can pass what ever law they want, and you cant say nothing, you signed the contract.
Not Peter. I did not mean to attribute the collectivist ideas to Schiff, but rather to mr82769.
@bobjman I am making philosophic point, not an economic one, for those not familiar with the English language. It is unethical to consider your fellow human being as a "resource", or as "capital" in the way collectivist central planners do..
human capital is translated as education and training for those not familiar with economics.
Because the banks would be forced to liquidate their assets in bankruptcy. These sales would transfer capital to the new private owners. As it is currently, the banks and the Fed are sitting on HUGE balance sheets. They're keeping all that "capital" out of the market that would otherwise be transferred in bankruptcy sales.
@Ellipsis10 and for those people, do you see there are real work opportunities, or that corporations have squeezed them all down so it's "starve" or "do this job" or "work what's left of the system" ?
Schiff- Please explain why there would be more capital in the private sector if the banks were not bailed out? While I understand the long term effects of the bailouts of raised taxes or inflation, I do not see how there would be more capital in the private sector after asset values were reduced because of the non-bailout "fire-sales" that would have occurred.
Schiff- Please explain why there would be more capital in the private sector if the banks were not bailed out? While I understand the long term effects of the bailouts of raised taxes or inflation, I do not see how there would be more capital in the private sector after asset values were reduced because of the non-bailout "fire-sales" that would have occurred.
thanks Peter, you have a lot of support in Canada and other international markets, you should tap that.
Reason Prevails..
Interest should be outlawed and money should be worth it's base metal value... but then everyone would have to work and money would only be worth what you could make out of the metal itself!
YES! If everyone becomes an investor then no one is left to work... if no one works then products/services go up in price and money becomes worthless.
Everyone wants to be an investor and no one wants to work...
Imagine if they stopped printing money... the rich would own all of it taking it out of circulation and then it would still be worthless.
along*
@mr82769 at least you admit it, "dude".
the banks wouldn't have cared if their liabilities went bust. they had their money printed up for free. economic melt down? they would have been laughing. they got their socialist in.
@whatabitch99 i don't know what you mean. the bail out wasn't printed by the fed, it was a big Iou to the taxpayer, printed up on bank bonds. The FED didn't design or want the bail out.. if they had to substantiate the switching of the banks liabilities to the tax payer, well what else are they supposedly doing? i'm sure the FEDs were with the precipitation of the market collapse. they did it on purpose, but they didn't expect paulison to do what he did.
@steve1coglia i thought it might be but google didn't spell it out.
I appreciate the enthusiasm mr82769, but you're un-educated on the subject of anarcho-capitalism.
I will not argue the point about army, police and courts being necessary. My point is that we shouldn't rely on Government to get them. We can have those things without Government. If you're curious, look up Murray Rothbard.
The situation in Africa is due to HEAVY government involvement. That "extraction" IS taxes. In a place with no government, there would be no taxes, and people won't be poor.
@nVei06 - peter is referring to the RMB which is the currency code for China's currency - the Renminbi. You're right though, he tends to use a lot of advanced terms for the layperson.
Are you kidding? Is that serious? Im seriously sitting here laughing at you...!
The stronger part extracts resources. "Enormous taxes" are you fucking KIDDING me!?
What happens in areas where the police are afraid to go? The stronger gangs take control and that is what will happen with zero government.
You need army, police and a fair court system (aka. GOVERNMENT).
Whatever dude. Im advocate death and decay. Of course I do. Else I might have a point right?
Collectivists ideas he advocates are UNJUST: they treat people as a societal RESOURCE, not individuals with rights of their own. ("..human CAPITAL" ???!?! wtf)
A kid born in Sudan has the same RIGHTS as a kid born in the Netherlands, or South Dakota. Every person requires that things be produced in order to survive. The question is: are they to obtain those things by their own work & voluntary cooperation of others, OR by FORCE and coercion?
We have a moral responsibility to treat others with the respect of ASKING for their help, not DEMANDING with death threats as mr82769 advocates.