- Source, Peter Schiff
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Irwin Schiff's motion to the Supreme Court
My father makes a powerful case that the IRS has been collecting the income tax in violation of law, multiple Supreme Court decisions, and the U.S. Constitution. At the very least his efforts provide compelling evidence of the sincerity with which he holds his beliefs and that his conduct was in no way criminal. My father is 86, practically blind, in failing health, yet is still fighting for a cause he wholeheartedly believes in. He is proceeding without a lawyer and despite his physical limitations and the limited computer access provided in federal prisons, he still managed to put this comprehensive motion together. Read it yourself and share it with as many people as you can. My father would appreciate your assistance in making sure that his message is heard. Even if the courts ignore it, let's try and make sure that the American people do not. Thanks for your help.
Friday, August 8, 2014
Is This What A Bursting Bubble Looks Like?
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Debt is No Salvation
Thus far 2014 has been a fertile year for really stupid economic ideas. But of all the half-baked doozies that have come down the pike (the perils of "lowflation," Thomas Piketty's claims about capitalism creating poverty, and President Obama's "pay as you earn" solution to student debt), an idea hatched last week by CNBC's reliably ridiculous Steve Liesman may in fact take the cake. In diagnosing the causes of the continued malaise in the U.S. economy he explained, "the problem is that consumers are not taking on enough debt." And that "historically the U.S. economy has been built on consumer credit." His conclusion: Consumers must be encouraged to borrow more money and spend it. Given that Liesman is CNBC's senior economic reporter, I would hate to see the ideas the junior people come up with.
Before I get into the historical amnesia needed to make such a statement, we first have to confront the question of causation. Just as most economists believe that falling prices cause recession, rather than the other way around, Liesman believes that economic growth is created when people tap into society's savings in order to buy consumer goods that they could not otherwise afford. But consumption does not create growth. Increasing productive output allows for greater consumption. Something needs to be produced before it can be consumed.
But even allowing for this misunderstanding, consumer credit does little to increase consumption. All it accomplishes is to pull forward future consumption into the present (while generating a fee for the banker). This is like giving yourself a blood transfusion from your left arm to your right. Nothing is accomplished, except the possibility of spilling blood on the floor. But it's not even that benign.
If, for instance, a consumer borrows to take a vacation, the debt will have to be repaid, with interest, from future earnings. This just means that rather than saving now (under-consuming) to pay in cash (which under normal circumstances would earn interest and defray the cost) for a vacation in the future, the consumer borrows to vacation now and pays for it in the future. But shifting consumption forward can only create the illusion of growth.
Unlike business credit that can be self-liquidating (businesses borrow to invest, thereby expanding capacity, increasing revenue, and gaining a better ability to repay the loan out of increased earnings), consumer credit does nothing to help borrowers repay. Why would a consumer expect it to be easier to pay for a vacation in the future that he can't afford in the present? Especially when he is using credit to pay, which will add interest costs to the final bill. As a result, consumer loans diminish future consumption more than current consumption is increased.
In fact, borrowing to consume is the worst use of society's limited store of savings. As explained in my book, How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes, savings leads to capital formation and investment, which grows productive capacity. When production grows, goods and services become more plentiful and affordable, thereby raising living standards. Consumer credit interferes with this process. Funds borrowed for consumption are not available for more productive uses. Since consumer credit reduces investment, it also reduces future production, which must also reduce future consumption.
Liesman is also mistaken that consumer credit has been the historic foundation of growth in the United States. It may surprise him to know that consumer credit was largely unknown until the second half of the 20th Century. Before that, people simply did not, or could not, buy things on credit. They tended to pay in cash (even for cars) or with the now quaint system of lay-a-way (which is essentially the opposite of consumer credit). Credit cards did not become ubiquitous until the 1970s. It was also much more common for Americans to save money for an uncertain future, the "rainy day," that we were always being warned about. But savings rates now are only a fraction of where they had been for most of our history. Consumers now expect to borrow their way out of any crisis. Yet the American economy enjoyed some of its best years before consumer credit ever became an option.
What Liesman is really advocating is that consumers borrow money to buy things they cannot afford. What kind of economic advice is that? Especially now that one third of Americans have less than $1,000 saved for retirement; a statistic so shocking that even CNBC recently cited it as a cause for concern. Does he really think that these savings-short Americans should take on even more consumer debt? Does creating a nation of bankrupt seniors who are too broke to retire ever create a more prosperous society?
Contrary to Liesman's asinine contention, it's not consumer credit that built the U.S. economy but its opposite - savings! Under-consumption not excess-consumption is what made America great. By saving instead of spending, consumers provided society with the means to increase investment and production that led to rising living standards for all. Unfortunately, it's consumer credit that is helping to destroy what savings once built.
Before I get into the historical amnesia needed to make such a statement, we first have to confront the question of causation. Just as most economists believe that falling prices cause recession, rather than the other way around, Liesman believes that economic growth is created when people tap into society's savings in order to buy consumer goods that they could not otherwise afford. But consumption does not create growth. Increasing productive output allows for greater consumption. Something needs to be produced before it can be consumed.
But even allowing for this misunderstanding, consumer credit does little to increase consumption. All it accomplishes is to pull forward future consumption into the present (while generating a fee for the banker). This is like giving yourself a blood transfusion from your left arm to your right. Nothing is accomplished, except the possibility of spilling blood on the floor. But it's not even that benign.
If, for instance, a consumer borrows to take a vacation, the debt will have to be repaid, with interest, from future earnings. This just means that rather than saving now (under-consuming) to pay in cash (which under normal circumstances would earn interest and defray the cost) for a vacation in the future, the consumer borrows to vacation now and pays for it in the future. But shifting consumption forward can only create the illusion of growth.
Unlike business credit that can be self-liquidating (businesses borrow to invest, thereby expanding capacity, increasing revenue, and gaining a better ability to repay the loan out of increased earnings), consumer credit does nothing to help borrowers repay. Why would a consumer expect it to be easier to pay for a vacation in the future that he can't afford in the present? Especially when he is using credit to pay, which will add interest costs to the final bill. As a result, consumer loans diminish future consumption more than current consumption is increased.
In fact, borrowing to consume is the worst use of society's limited store of savings. As explained in my book, How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes, savings leads to capital formation and investment, which grows productive capacity. When production grows, goods and services become more plentiful and affordable, thereby raising living standards. Consumer credit interferes with this process. Funds borrowed for consumption are not available for more productive uses. Since consumer credit reduces investment, it also reduces future production, which must also reduce future consumption.
Liesman is also mistaken that consumer credit has been the historic foundation of growth in the United States. It may surprise him to know that consumer credit was largely unknown until the second half of the 20th Century. Before that, people simply did not, or could not, buy things on credit. They tended to pay in cash (even for cars) or with the now quaint system of lay-a-way (which is essentially the opposite of consumer credit). Credit cards did not become ubiquitous until the 1970s. It was also much more common for Americans to save money for an uncertain future, the "rainy day," that we were always being warned about. But savings rates now are only a fraction of where they had been for most of our history. Consumers now expect to borrow their way out of any crisis. Yet the American economy enjoyed some of its best years before consumer credit ever became an option.
What Liesman is really advocating is that consumers borrow money to buy things they cannot afford. What kind of economic advice is that? Especially now that one third of Americans have less than $1,000 saved for retirement; a statistic so shocking that even CNBC recently cited it as a cause for concern. Does he really think that these savings-short Americans should take on even more consumer debt? Does creating a nation of bankrupt seniors who are too broke to retire ever create a more prosperous society?
Contrary to Liesman's asinine contention, it's not consumer credit that built the U.S. economy but its opposite - savings! Under-consumption not excess-consumption is what made America great. By saving instead of spending, consumers provided society with the means to increase investment and production that led to rising living standards for all. Unfortunately, it's consumer credit that is helping to destroy what savings once built.
- Source, Peter Schiff
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Peter Schiff New Hampshire Liberty Forum Full Presentation
Unfortunately just like 1976, a true economic recovery is not just around the corner. More likely we are in the eye of an economic storm that will blow much.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Casey Research interviews Peter Schiff
For the latest Peter Schiff, go to - Peter Schiff interviewed an Anarchist on his show, Stefan Molyneux. In this interview, Peter .
The Bubble is a feature length documentary that ask those who predicted the greatest recession since the Great Depression.
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Mark Dow vs. Peter Schiff on Gold, Inflation, Fed
Friday, July 18, 2014
Peter Schiff on US Economy & Lacy Hunt on Ineffectiveness of Monetary Policy
Then, we bring you part two of our interview with Peter Schiff who discusses the current state of the US economy. Schiff talks about debt, inflation, and Federal Reserve policy. After the break, Erin brings you her conversation with Dr. Lacy Hunt who believes that monetary policy is not effective with such high levels of debt in our economy.
For today's Big Deal, Edward Harrison sits down with Breaking the Set producer Manny Rapalo to talk about the World Cup, Brazil, and international soccer.
- Source, Russia Today
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
How Clueless Can People Be? Now We Know!
Monday, July 14, 2014
David Brat Knows Workers Suffer Most from Minimum Wage Laws
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Peter Schiff on Crisis in Iraq Hitting World Economy
Thursday, July 10, 2014
There are No Reasons for the Dollar to be World’s Reserve Currency
The more the US antagonizes the world with spying or huge fines on foreign banks, the quicker the process of abandoning the dollar as a reserve currency will be unraveled, Peter Schiff, the president of investment house Euro Pacific Capital, told RT.
RT: This is just the latest in a series of scandals linked to America's spying on Germany. Why does Berlin not react more strongly?
Peter Schiff: I do not know. America is doing a lot to p*** off its friends - not only spying on them. Believe me, many Americans do not like it any more than the Germans. But we are also fining major European banks in Switzerland, in France and in the UK for violating US law. The Germans maybe should be even more concerned with what happened to their gold than about the spying.
RT: Why are European countries so economically dependent on the States?
PS: They are not. I think it is the other way around - the US is very dependent on the rest of the world. It is just incumbent on the rest of the world to figure that out. But the US dollar is still functioning as a reserve currency, so the dollar is a part of larger transactions but there is no reason for the dollar to be at the center of these transactions because the dollar shouldn’t be a reserve currency. Maybe at one time when we were the world’s largest exporter, as far as biggest trade surpluses, we had high savings rates, and the dollar was backed by gold. [At] one time maybe the dollar deserved to be a reserve currency, but certainly those conditions have changed dramatically. The US does not share any of the characteristics it had when the dollar became a reserve currency. It is just a matter of time before it no longer functions as a reserve currency. And the more we antagonize the rest of the world with spying or with these huge fines on foreign banks, the quicker this process is going to be unraveled.
RT: If Germany did decide to do something about America's spying activities, what could it actually achieve?
PS: I do not know, but certainly what emboldens the US to act in this way is this feeling of invincibility or superiority, and it is going to be very humbling when the truth comes out, when America is going to be forced to face what has happened to this country. We have been living beyond our means, we have been living based on our fantasy, not based on reality and the world is certainly helping to preserve that fantasy by accumulating US dollars, by continuing to loan us more money. If the world was not loaning us so much money, we wouldn’t be able to afford to spy on anybody, even on American citizens. Speaking as an American citizen, that would be an improvement.
RT: Germany is a friend of the US, so should it even be worried about being spied on?
PS: Look, Americans are afraid that they are being spied on, too. Nobody wants people spying on them. The government claims that this is all to keep us safe, this is all to protect us from terrorists, but I do not trust government and if the Germans do not trust our government, then I don’t trust them either. You always have an abuse of power, so you want to limit government power, and I think what the US government is doing with respect to the American citizens is not only immoral but unconstitutional. And again, welcome to the club. If the Germans were upset about “our government spying on us,” they probably have a right to be. But at least if they are spying on the Germans, maybe they can make an argument that might be more related to potential terrorist threats than spying on Americans.
RT: This is just the latest in a series of scandals linked to America's spying on Germany. Why does Berlin not react more strongly?
Peter Schiff: I do not know. America is doing a lot to p*** off its friends - not only spying on them. Believe me, many Americans do not like it any more than the Germans. But we are also fining major European banks in Switzerland, in France and in the UK for violating US law. The Germans maybe should be even more concerned with what happened to their gold than about the spying.
RT: Why are European countries so economically dependent on the States?
PS: They are not. I think it is the other way around - the US is very dependent on the rest of the world. It is just incumbent on the rest of the world to figure that out. But the US dollar is still functioning as a reserve currency, so the dollar is a part of larger transactions but there is no reason for the dollar to be at the center of these transactions because the dollar shouldn’t be a reserve currency. Maybe at one time when we were the world’s largest exporter, as far as biggest trade surpluses, we had high savings rates, and the dollar was backed by gold. [At] one time maybe the dollar deserved to be a reserve currency, but certainly those conditions have changed dramatically. The US does not share any of the characteristics it had when the dollar became a reserve currency. It is just a matter of time before it no longer functions as a reserve currency. And the more we antagonize the rest of the world with spying or with these huge fines on foreign banks, the quicker this process is going to be unraveled.
RT: If Germany did decide to do something about America's spying activities, what could it actually achieve?
PS: I do not know, but certainly what emboldens the US to act in this way is this feeling of invincibility or superiority, and it is going to be very humbling when the truth comes out, when America is going to be forced to face what has happened to this country. We have been living beyond our means, we have been living based on our fantasy, not based on reality and the world is certainly helping to preserve that fantasy by accumulating US dollars, by continuing to loan us more money. If the world was not loaning us so much money, we wouldn’t be able to afford to spy on anybody, even on American citizens. Speaking as an American citizen, that would be an improvement.
RT: Germany is a friend of the US, so should it even be worried about being spied on?
PS: Look, Americans are afraid that they are being spied on, too. Nobody wants people spying on them. The government claims that this is all to keep us safe, this is all to protect us from terrorists, but I do not trust government and if the Germans do not trust our government, then I don’t trust them either. You always have an abuse of power, so you want to limit government power, and I think what the US government is doing with respect to the American citizens is not only immoral but unconstitutional. And again, welcome to the club. If the Germans were upset about “our government spying on us,” they probably have a right to be. But at least if they are spying on the Germans, maybe they can make an argument that might be more related to potential terrorist threats than spying on Americans.
- Source, Russia Today
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Schiff Makes Case for Gold, but Gartman Not Buying it
Peter Schiff, the CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, is one of gold's biggest proponents; Dennis Gartman, the editor of "The Gartman Letter" who is sometimes called "The Commodities King," refuses to buy the metal in U.S. dollar terms.
So who will be proven right?
On Tuesday's "Futures Now," the two gold experts debated the issue directly.
"Most people on Wall Street were very impressed by [the jobs numbers] yet the price of gold did not surrender any of the gains in the previous week," Schiff pointed out.
"So to me, we're consolidating those gains, we're putting in a very formidable bottom in gold. We still have all of the naysayers, the Goldman Sachs, Societe Generale, all these guys that were negative calling for $1,100, $1,000, they're digging in their heels, they're just as bearish as they were at the beginning of the year despite the fact that they've been wrong for six months. So you have a lot of negativity, but I think the technical picture is improving rapidly for gold."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)