Peter Schiff 1/10/2009 "Obama Is Going To Help Destroy The Country"

This was from today. Every interview i see it's Schiff trying to tell everyone that they are wrong....yet no one seems to get it.

Lol....when will things change!? How long can u keep screaming until you finally give up?

....destroy a country that has already been destroyed beyond repair by Cheney and his sockpupett???

I dont see how that is possible.

To me, it will always BE BUSH'S FAULT. To history, it will always be BUSH'S FAULT. To the world, it will always be BUSH'S FAULT.

Dude, Yellowstone is gonna blow too and then there is World War 3 from Gaza. Let's not forget that y2k bug and OMG the auto companies are gonna die. This Schiff character sounds like he is trying to make money for a book or something. Just the title of the thread "Obama is going to help destroy the Country" is completely lame. "Help" means other people are doing things so who are they. Funny how we seem to be seeing the crimes of Bush and crew foisted on incomming and not yet officially president Barrack Obama. I'm on wait and see mode. I think we are used to being abused and scoffed at by our government over the last eight years. Let's give the new guys a chance although remember they are playing with and EXTREME handicap right now.

What President has inherited a more broken USA? Maybe 1 to a few but Obama is really starting in a pit of neo-con destruction.

Like I said in another post. Everytime Schiff is on TV lately his 'predictions' get nuttier and nuttier. He's loving the attention and don't think for a second he won't try to parlay that attention into some kind of run for office or a book deal. Schiff is an opportunist, nothing more. His answer to the problem is basically one that would lead to doom too. It's a do nothing and let the bad banks and families with bad mortages go down in flames idea...the market will fix itself BS. Hoover tried that once before Peter...how'd that go??

If people want someone to listen to for advice on how to get out of this mess than go with Paul Krugman. I'll take a Nobel Prize winners advice any day over a Libertarian hacks advice. Krugman argues for massive infrastructure programs that would both create jobs now and help our economy for decades once the projects are completed(roads, high speed rail, electrical grid upgrades, clean energy R&D, etc). That's an investment in America's future that could have the added benefit of helping ease this crisis.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by hawkeye1717]

[edit on 10-1-2009 by hawkeye1717]

reply to post by hawkeye1717


Our money is essentially "debt", or a indefinite maturity bond carrying no interest against future tax collections. There is a metric called the M1 money multiplier which gauges the effectiveness of each additional dollar into the system. Above 1, each newly created dollar contributes positively to economic growth, below 1 and it creates a negative economic impact since you get less for each additional dollar. If you place $10 dollars into the system, it's economic impact is judged by how many times it circulates in a given amount of time (its velocity). The higher the velocity, the higher the impact is on the economy. We are now at 1 (or slightly below), which means that each additional dollar is doing less than the previous in economic output. Combined with a slowing velocity of money it is simply impossible to print ( i.e., Obama/Congressional Stimulus package) yourself out of this, since each additional dollar has a negative economic impact. A mathematical impossibility. The real issue isn't the lack of money out there, it's that there is too much of it.

Economic growth since 2000 has been a function of explosive credit growth. Aggregate GDP went from $10 trillion to $14 trillion in this time frame. At the same time, we went from 260% of GDP (roughly $26 trillion dollars) to over 360% of GDP (roughly $50 trillion dollars) in outstanding debt, public and private from 2000 to 2007. The growth you are accustomed to is, for all intents and purposes, fake. This is much, much more than just a housing crisis. This is a DEBT crisis, public and private. You don't remedy an alcoholic with more alcohol, nor do you fix a debt problem by taking on more debt.

One possibility to begin to fix this mess, although painful, is to allow the bad debt to default, as it rightfully should. Once it is out in the open, confidence returns and we can begin to recapitalize good assets (banks, businesses, etc). If liquidity is not withdrawn from the system, then things will progress to a much worse state than we are currently in. This mess was created in the first place because of the amount of debt we carried was not sufficiently backed by productive capacity; taking on more debt does not absolve this problem or fix this "confidence game". Has the massive injection of liquidity($1.5 trillion explicit + an additional $5 trillion backing of FNM/FRE) into the system since August of 2007 stabilized things? Ask the 693,000 people who lost their job last month alone. Our public debt is growing exponentially, to what avail?

Addendum: I just saw that for the most recent Treasury Auction, indirect participation was only 18%. This could indicate that foreign buyers of our debt (China, Russia, UK, etc) are becoming weary of our big spending. Issuance of a variety of kinds of U.S treasury bonds have become a VERY important source of "income" for financing our government's bailout adventures. In the case that a significant portion of the buyers of our debt decide to refrain from purchasing more, or rolling over their current bonds, we would face what is called a Treasury Bond dislocation. In other words, the money spigot would turn off and we would either have to print money from thin air (see above paragraphs), or drastically cut back on spending (impossible) in order to make up for lost income. The Treasury would have to issue debt at a much higher interest rate in order to lure in purchasers of more debt, resulting in a number of unintended consequences. These would range from consumer credit interest rates going sky high, to a "crowding out effect" of the business credit market if Treasury rates were sufficiently high. Not pretty at all.

I'd say our solvent days are far behind us.

Isn't it funny how nobody took Peter Schiff seriously years ago when he warned of the economic collapse?

And isn't it even funnier now that he has been proven right and they're still not listening to what he has to say?

You'd think he would have earned a bit more respect than to have some sniveling rat constantly interrupt him, and say he "hates facts & hates data"

funny... yes...

Problem:

Some people continue to look at things as Dem/Rep. Obama is just doing more spending which is exactly what the problem has been...and he's got the backup of the entire government..the only thing they don't agree on is how to spend it.

To those that think all this spending is wrong...they don't care who it is that's doing it. If you want to think that because someone is criticizing Obama that it's not fair because Bush screwed up for 8 years then go ahead. You are just blinding yourself by political lines.

I used to look at things that way.... I don't anymore. Both parties are more alike than many would care to admit.

He was just on television saying that government was the only answer to the problem....when the problem is the government. It doesn't matter who is leading it because just about all of them would do pretty much the same thing.

I wish things would change and get better...but in reality they are not and won't.

BTW..The title of the thread came from the title of video...it was not of my making.

Jeeze, I could barely stand to watch that! My wife made me put in the headphones... why even have the guy on TV if he is not allowed to answer a question.... the weasel guy was worse than Sean Hannity!

reply to post by David9176


Fair enough and maybe Peter is right. The cows already out of the barn as far as bailouts go after the bank etc so why not throw on some more for the people and the infrastructure. I don't think government is the problem so much as what government can do. We are too focused on military confrontation and the appeasement of wealthy people out of some weird respect we had for the hereditary monarchies. We love to let others fix our problems and gladly pay for the privilege.

reply to post by infolurker


You're right...it was basically a shouting match and kinda tough to sit through. It's really just another indication on how bad things have and are getting.

Instead of listening and trying to understand what he is saying..they jump all over him.

the Thread Headline 'Obama is going to help Destroy the Country'


might be only partially accurate... the reason is that Obama has a major part of his administration who are 'TriLateralists'...

some from the Carter & Clinton eras...
it all stinks...
It may be better when the elites in the Obama regime get canned for obvious treachery & unlawful acts...

but that's a lot-of-heads-to-roll & 4 years until Obama is re-elected and does not need to bow to the Powers-That-Be
to staff his own Administration, instead of staffing key positions with Doofuses that the big-wigs want in key positions

I had to chuckle at the other guy who brought up the Soviet Union and Germany as examples of totalitarian governments that were "born by depressions" I think he put it. I don't know if this was true about the Soviets but when I heard about the bailout plan all that came to my mind was stories of the Wehmar Republic (Germany before Hitler came to power) where when the mark started to fall in value because the government covered its debt by printing more and more currency. This caused inflation (if not at least bordering on hyperinflation) and stories where people would need huge amounts of marks for a single loaf of bread. This set the stage for Hitler and Co. to relate to those who were suffering because of this and get into power.

I'm sure he won't ever talk about that, because...well I think that answers itself. I don't think Obama will destroy the country but spending by printing sure isn't going to help much in the long run.

Both of those guys are so obnoxious! They are both wrong to an extent. We won't be in a severe depression and we aren't improving.

Originally posted by stikkinikki
Just the title of the thread "Obama is going to help destroy the Country" is completely lame. "Help" means other people are doing things so who are they.

Don't you know who controls the Government? The bankers.

Obama will do as he is told, just like Bush did.