Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Kshartle » Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:17 am

Gumby wrote: Either way, you need to not get so emotional about the mechanics. We are just describing what happens during "reflation".
I appreciate the concern but you need not get so emotional about me being emotional (I'm not, you're engaging in ad hominem, trying to claim I'm being emotional which somehow diminishes my point).
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Gumby » Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:19 am

Kshartle wrote:
Gumby wrote: Either way, you need to not get so emotional about the mechanics. We are just describing what happens during "reflation".
I appreciate the concern but you need not get so emotional about me being emotional (I'm not, you're engaging in ad hominem, trying to claim I'm being emotional which somehow diminishes my point).
Ok, KShartle. You're not "emotional". I'm sure nobody here thinks that.  ::)

Funny how you accuse others of this though.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Kshartle » Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:19 am

Gumby wrote: But, just because the mechanics are correct, doesn't mean the policy is good or bad. You understand the difference, right?
He said the government can spend the correct amount to get us a beautiful deleveraging. Is a beautiful deleveraging bad or good?
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Gumby » Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:20 am

Kshartle wrote:Is a beautiful deleveraging bad or good?
Nobody knows. We can't predict the future.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8783
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Pointedstick » Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:21 am

I feel like every thread with Kshartle in it turns into a variant of this extremely frustrating conversation about firearms that I suspect many of us have had:


Gun owner: The way a gun works is by setting off an explosive reaction in a confined space to force a metal projectile down a tube.

Anti-gun person: But guns kill people!

GO: Yes. That's the point. The way they do this is through a controlled chemical reaction that I'm trying to explain to you.

AGP: Don't you understand that killing people is bad!?

GO: The gun is neutral. It doesn't kill anyone. The wielder does. I'm just talking about the way a gun works.

AGP: I don't care about how a gun works; it's a malevolent object that kills people.

GO: Look, the end purpose isn't something I'm concerned with right now. You can use a gun for good or you can use it for evil. All I want to do is explain how a gun works so we can all have a better understanding of the mechanics of firearms.

AGP: I don't need to know that, all I need to know is that they're bad and the world would be better off without them. Why would I want a better understanding of the mechanics of something so harmful?

GO: To broaden your understanding of the world around you, and possibly gain some insight into the workings of something that's not going away anytime soon.

AGP: They should go away. Guns are bad and kill people.

GO: Guns are here to stay, whether you like it or not. Given that, isn't it sensible to gain some understanding of their internal logic?

AGP: I don't need to know that, all I need to know is that they're bad and the world would be better off without them. Why would I want a better understanding of the mechanics of something so harmful?

…and on and on forever…
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Kshartle » Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:27 am

Gumby wrote:
Kshartle wrote:
Gumby wrote: Either way, you need to not get so emotional about the mechanics. We are just describing what happens during "reflation".
I appreciate the concern but you need not get so emotional about me being emotional (I'm not, you're engaging in ad hominem, trying to claim I'm being emotional which somehow diminishes my point).
Ok, KShartle. You're not "emotional". I'm sure nobody here thinks that.  ::)

Funny how you accuse others of this though.
Right. This is a combo deal. Changing the subject to me, and attributing something to me I haven't said. A two for one!
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9078
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by MediumTex » Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:39 am

Kshartle wrote:
Gumby wrote:
Kshartle wrote: I appreciate the concern but you need not get so emotional about me being emotional (I'm not, you're engaging in ad hominem, trying to claim I'm being emotional which somehow diminishes my point).
Ok, KShartle. You're not "emotional". I'm sure nobody here thinks that.  ::)

Funny how you accuse others of this though.
Right. This is a combo deal. Changing the subject to me, and attributing something to me I haven't said. A two for one!
Fellas, don't do this.

If you don't agree with one another and you don't think you can work out your disagreement, let's talk about something else.

There are plenty of places on the internet to knock heads with other people until everyone is exhausted.  I don't want this to be one of those places.
Only strength can cooperate. Weakness can only beg.
-Dwight Eisenhower
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Kshartle » Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:48 am

Pointedstick wrote: I feel like every thread with Kshartle in it turns into a variant of this extremely frustrating conversation about firearms that I suspect many of us have had:


Gun owner: The way a gun works is by setting off an explosive reaction in a confined space to force a metal projectile down a tube.

Anti-gun person: But guns kill people!

GO: Yes. That's the point. The way they do this is through a controlled chemical reaction that I'm trying to explain to you.

AGP: Don't you understand that killing people is bad!?

GO: The gun is neutral. It doesn't kill anyone. The wielder does. I'm just talking about the way a gun works.

AGP: I don't care about how a gun works; it's a malevolent object that kills people.

GO: Look, the end purpose isn't something I'm concerned with right now. You can use a gun for good or you can use it for evil. All I want to do is explain how a gun works so we can all have a better understanding of the mechanics of firearms.

AGP: I don't need to know that, all I need to know is that they're bad and the world would be better off without them. Why would I want a better understanding of the mechanics of something so harmful?

GO: To broaden your understanding of the world around you, and possibly gain some insight into the workings of something that's not going away anytime soon.

AGP: They should go away. Guns are bad and kill people.

GO: Guns are here to stay, whether you like it or not. Given that, isn't it sensible to gain some understanding of their internal logic?

AGP: I don't need to know that, all I need to know is that they're bad and the world would be better off without them. Why would I want a better understanding of the mechanics of something so harmful?

…and on and on forever…
Wait which one am I?
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Kshartle » Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:52 am

Kshartle wrote:
Pointedstick wrote: I feel like every thread with Kshartle in it turns into a variant of this extremely frustrating conversation about firearms that I suspect many of us have had:


Gun owner: The way a gun works is by setting off an explosive reaction in a confined space to force a metal projectile down a tube.

Anti-gun person: But guns kill people!

GO: Yes. That's the point. The way they do this is through a controlled chemical reaction that I'm trying to explain to you.

AGP: Don't you understand that killing people is bad!?

GO: The gun is neutral. It doesn't kill anyone. The wielder does. I'm just talking about the way a gun works.

AGP: I don't care about how a gun works; it's a malevolent object that kills people.

GO: Look, the end purpose isn't something I'm concerned with right now. You can use a gun for good or you can use it for evil. All I want to do is explain how a gun works so we can all have a better understanding of the mechanics of firearms.

AGP: I don't need to know that, all I need to know is that they're bad and the world would be better off without them. Why would I want a better understanding of the mechanics of something so harmful?

GO: To broaden your understanding of the world around you, and possibly gain some insight into the workings of something that's not going away anytime soon.

AGP: They should go away. Guns are bad and kill people.

GO: Guns are here to stay, whether you like it or not. Given that, isn't it sensible to gain some understanding of their internal logic?

AGP: I don't need to know that, all I need to know is that they're bad and the world would be better off without them. Why would I want a better understanding of the mechanics of something so harmful?

…and on and on forever…
Wait which one am I?
Politicians having access to a printing press and understanding the consequences to the economy is engaging in understanding reality. Ignoring it is ignoring reality.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8783
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Pointedstick » Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:54 am

Kshartle wrote: Politicians People having access to a printing press guns and understanding the consequences to the economy public safety is engaging in understanding reality. Ignoring it is ignoring reality.
Is this an argument that would sway YOU?
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5995
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Libertarian666 » Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:56 am

Pointedstick wrote:
Kshartle wrote: Politicians People having access to a printing press guns and understanding the consequences to the economy public safety is engaging in understanding reality. Ignoring it is ignoring reality.
Is this an argument that would sway YOU?
Guns are indeed morally neutral. Government is not; it is evil. Does that affect the analogy?
User avatar
l82start
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:51 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by l82start » Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:09 am

kshartle is correct in his understanding of expanding/printing government and the fact it will ultimately result in trouble,  but he is incorrect in his predictions of immanent inflation because he doesn't get the mechanics, moda gumby and the MR group are correct about inflation because they get the mechanics but incorrect about how governments infinite spending/expansion wont cause problems because they don't get the effects of force...  does that clarify anything??

the gun analogy got a bit confusing to me as well since the pro government types tend to be the ones who are anti gun....



 
Last edited by l82start on Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Government 2020+ - a BANANA REPUBLIC - if you can keep it

Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence
Post Reply