Peter Schiff and his gay Austrian band of idiots say the same thing decade after decade. He has a good understanding of paper wealth and the tech bubble and housing bubble, but aside from that he has done nothing. He lost his clients money with his predictions on hyperinflation and the destruction of the dollar after the crisis. This girl bitched slapped him... why would the Govt hiring people who just lost their jobs affect the private sector? He talks nothing about the velocity of money or macroeconomics. He lives in a pipe dream where the private sector magically can solve all problems. We've tried that 100s of years ago and it didn't work. Schiff will be crying about hyperinflation and the destruction of the dollar the rest of his life, and he continues to be wrong about it.
"Free market would provide regulation"??? Hahahahaha. You crack me up Peter!
"Free market would provide regulation"??? Hahahahaha. You crack me up Peter!
It is obvious that Keynesian economics and demand management are tools for fools. Wealth, a better society, a cleaner world, a higher level of development is not coerced by government. It only occurs when free people operating in free markets are allowed to interact and determine the price and supply of various goods and services. Government involvement ensures the opposite and is a theory mired in cultish theological absurdity.
Keynes was a left wing wall flower and a member of the deranged Bloomsbury group of inter-World War British pacifists. He was an arrogant theorist who truly believed in the magical elixir of large government and in the technocratic dream of controlling billions of personal, business and economic decisions, to programmatically construct a perfect world order. Keynes gave intellect and jargon filled cover and rationale to politicians and demagogues who would cite his book, 'The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money', to justify state interventionism.
Your pipe dream is nice and all, but you can not explain or show me data on how that would be any more efficient than what we have. It makes no sense to just let millions of people lose their jobs and then try to rebuild the country back up. The people with the money will never create more business until the people with out money have money. That is how it works. We are a demand driven economy... not a supply side economy. You can build 1 billion awesome widgets... but if no one will buy them, then it doesn't really matter. Listen, here are the facts... the Govt has not reduced spending over the past 70 years. So please show me your proof that shows that the economy is better off with less Govt? I'm waiting!!
I've answered this plenty of times. When all those unemployed get a paycheck. What do they do? They go and they buy food, buy a cell phone, pay off their car loans, etc. It's the macro effect of adding $800 billion to the demand side of the economy. Obama screwed up because the majority of it was in tax rebates and not direct Govt spending. If you own a restaurant and you get more customers that you would not have gotten before because of public sector employment, and you can pay your staff for another year... that is a stimulus. Because now those staff members can take their paychecks and purchase food, cell phones, etc. The velocity of money is the key to our economic success... and when people stop spending someone has to come in and bridge the gap. Otherwise society goes BOOM!!
Small government is good government. Small government helps the American worker because it does not allow the kind of concentrations of power that we have now. Why do big corporations spend billions on lobbying Congress to tilt the law in their favor? Because Congress has the power to tilt the laws in their favors. The reason why the Founders deliberately created a limited government of enumerated powers is to prevent the kind of naked interest-buying that we see now. The more power you give the government, the more incentives there are for government to use their power for their own advantage.
With Congress’ approval at a historic low, the idea that the case for small government is no longer worth making seems absurd. If anything, now is the best time to push a vision for a government that is smaller, more responsible, and more accountable. That such a government would ultimately be more equitable is a beneficial side-effect.
Politically, the Republicans should be doing what Sen. McCain threatened to do and “make famous” every single pork-barrel project in the “stimulus” bill. The message here is simple: tens of thousands of Americans are losing their jobs every day and Congress is paying off its campaign contributors with pork. Americans should be disgusted by the performance of Congress right now. The myth that this trillion-dollar boondoggle is anything but a case of Congress acting like robber barons of old should be laid to rest. Congress wants to claim that they’re “creating jobs”, but instead they’re giving more and more cash to the same politically well-connected actors.
This is precisely why small government is so crucial to having a more equitable society. If Congress were only allowed to spend money on truly national projects there would be no ability to send pork to campaign contributors. Big Government does not produce an more equitable society, it rewards those who side with the politically powerful. Small government benefits the people because it doesn’t allow Congress to game the system to benefit their own interests.
Take a simple but common example. When new regulations come down from all the federal agencies, have John and Jane Doe on Main Street had any opportunity to shape that new rule? Of course not, even if they compulsively wade through each daily edition of the massive Federal Register to see what rules are being proposed the most they can realistically do is send a strongly worded letter. Can Washington interest groups shape that rule? They pay lobbyists great amounts of money to do exactly that. Can business interests shape that rule? Absolutely, and they have their own army of lobbyists for just that purpose. So is it any shock that John and Jane Doe are under-represented in the process?
It’s a myth that “big business” and powerful special interests love small government and hate regulation. Why should they? They have the clout in Congress to make sure that the regulation benefits them. They can use their political connections to steer millions of taxpayer dollars to them. They can benefit from the access they have to Congress and even the White House. They know that P.J. O’Rourke’s great maxim is correct: “when buying and selling is legislated, then the first thing to be bought and sold are legislators.” The bigger and more intrusive government is, the higher the barriers to new competitors. Look at the most heavily-regulated markets in this country: they tend to be dominated by a handful of large players who can use their access to lobby government to keep those regulations in place. They benefit the most from the regulatory state, and they have every interest in seeing Big Government stay big.
If you’re a little player, like a “Mom and Pop” operation, forget it. The costs of regulatory compliance are too high. If you can’t afford the lobbyists, you can’t play the game, and you get squashed.
That is why we need smaller, less intrusive, and more accountable government. We need to reduce the incentives for the big players to game the system and increase the chances for small players to enter the market. That way the benefits go to the best and the brightest, not the most politically well-connected.
With Congress’ approval at a historic low, the idea that the case for small government is no longer worth making seems absurd. If anything, now is the best time to push a vision for a government that is smaller, more responsible, and more accountable. That such a government would ultimately be more equitable is a beneficial side-effect.
Politically, the Republicans should be doing what Sen. McCain threatened to do and “make famous” every single pork-barrel project in the “stimulus” bill. The message here is simple: tens of thousands of Americans are losing their jobs every day and Congress is paying off its campaign contributors with pork. Americans should be disgusted by the performance of Congress right now. The myth that this trillion-dollar boondoggle is anything but a case of Congress acting like robber barons of old should be laid to rest. Congress wants to claim that they’re “creating jobs”, but instead they’re giving more and more cash to the same politically well-connected actors.
This is precisely why small government is so crucial to having a more equitable society. If Congress were only allowed to spend money on truly national projects there would be no ability to send pork to campaign contributors. Big Government does not produce an more equitable society, it rewards those who side with the politically powerful. Small government benefits the people because it doesn’t allow Congress to game the system to benefit their own interests.
Take a simple but common example. When new regulations come down from all the federal agencies, have John and Jane Doe on Main Street had any opportunity to shape that new rule? Of course not, even if they compulsively wade through each daily edition of the massive Federal Register to see what rules are being proposed the most they can realistically do is send a strongly worded letter. Can Washington interest groups shape that rule? They pay lobbyists great amounts of money to do exactly that. Can business interests shape that rule? Absolutely, and they have their own army of lobbyists for just that purpose. So is it any shock that John and Jane Doe are under-represented in the process?
It’s a myth that “big business” and powerful special interests love small government and hate regulation. Why should they? They have the clout in Congress to make sure that the regulation benefits them. They can use their political connections to steer millions of taxpayer dollars to them. They can benefit from the access they have to Congress and even the White House. They know that P.J. O’Rourke’s great maxim is correct: “when buying and selling is legislated, then the first thing to be bought and sold are legislators.” The bigger and more intrusive government is, the higher the barriers to new competitors. Look at the most heavily-regulated markets in this country: they tend to be dominated by a handful of large players who can use their access to lobby government to keep those regulations in place. They benefit the most from the regulatory state, and they have every interest in seeing Big Government stay big.
If you’re a little player, like a “Mom and Pop” operation, forget it. The costs of regulatory compliance are too high. If you can’t afford the lobbyists, you can’t play the game, and you get squashed.
That is why we need smaller, less intrusive, and more accountable government. We need to reduce the incentives for the big players to game the system and increase the chances for small players to enter the market. That way the benefits go to the best and the brightest, not the most politically well-connected.
First off what you just babbled there has nothing to do with economics. I agree with your position that big business and corporations have unfair access to the system that makes their lives easier. What I don't believe is that a "smaller" Govt would make that any different. This notion that the private sector can regulate themselves is not proven. It is in fact proven to be disastrous. With out a regulating body that makes decisions that impact the country rather than impacts the bottom line, companies will not care about societal problems.
So, as I did appreciate an actual response from you. I notice, you had to ruin it a little bit later with your insults and comments about me not replying. I will reply to every thread directed at me if they want to get in a serious debate. Don't you worry about that. But even though you don't believe it, I also do have a life.
Once again, you can't just say "smaller" Govt. What does that mean? You mean less spending? Less regulations? Less public employment?
If that's the case then how does that help the economy? How would allowing banks and companies like GM to fail make life better for us. Saving the auto industry saved millions of jobs. Now if you are a harsh economists that says that is necessary for the free market that is fine. But there are consequences that come with letting sectors fail on their own. And it still revolves around macroeconomics and the velocity of money. This country can not sustain an auto industry collapsing or the banking sector collapsing. We will literally go in to a deflationary free for all. There is massive amounts of empirical evidence on how destructive deflation is to a country. Especially one that is driven by debt.
So, I notice once again you speak in pure fluff. This magical free market utopia you describe with out a single bit of factual evidence to show mathematically how that would make the country better off. I am in favor of the economic status quo... as in what America has been doing for the past 70 years. You still haven't addressed how a smaller Govt would get us out of a recession, you still haven't addressed Huntsman's point of view on a bigger stimulus, you haven't discussed where we get more and more money from, you haven't said anything about how the Govt is not revenue constrained, you never debate the charts I display showing a lack of credit and a lack of spending... you never debate any of these actual facts. Just like Sarah Palin you are pure fluff. You just say we need a "smaller" Govt with out knowing any reasons why. Why would a smaller Govt make things any better in this country?
What has the private sector shown that makes you think they would regulate themselves and care about society?
How will a smaller Govt prevent a rampant rise in health care costs?
How will a smaller Govt protect the poor and the elderly?
How do we prevent the disparity of wealth that we currently have... where the top 1% continue to accumulate more and more of the money this country has?
None of these questions you will even start to answer, because in the real world we know the answers and the consequences. You are talking about some magical economy that has never existed in America.
As Andrew Jackson once said... "The only role of the Govt is to protect the people from the tyranny of the rich".
We have thousands of years of evidence of what happens when the rich get to rich and the poor get to poor. So please spare me the useless babble and actually start debating the actual real world issues. Because what you just wrote there has absolutely no relevance to the economic discussions we've been having!
