Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

notsheigetz
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by notsheigetz » Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:41 pm

Kshartle wrote: Yes but isn't the enforcement of the mandate just a small penalty? Wasn't it ruled constitutional only because it was so small it could not compel compliance?
Only read the snippets in the news but I thought it was ruled constitutional because Roberts construed it as a tax.

Even so, I think the penalty amount is set to go up in the future and won't end up being so small.

I think this could end up backfiring on the democrats. If they were counting on those 30-35 million people without insurance being grateful and voting democrat from now on they might be mistaken. A large tax bill from the IRS tends to bring out the conservative instincts in a lot of people.
This space available for rent.
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Kshartle » Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:47 pm

notsheigetz wrote:
Kshartle wrote: Yes but isn't the enforcement of the mandate just a small penalty? Wasn't it ruled constitutional only because it was so small it could not compel compliance?
Only read the snippets in the news but I thought it was ruled constitutional because Roberts construed it as a tax.
It was considered a tx because it wasn't small enough to compel behavior was the point if I remember.
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by MediumTex » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:37 pm

A lot of these young healthy people are not going to buy health insurance. 

I saw a poll the other day that showed that around a third of young people aren't even aware that they will soon be required to buy health insurance.

If you explained to some 30 year old that the idea is to make the 30 year olds pay more into the system than they get out so that the 50 year olds can get more out than they pay in, I can imagine him saying something like:

"Okay.  Are the 50 year olds going to be helping the 30 year olds pay off their student loan debt as well?  I mean, that's fair, right?  The 50 year olds didn't have to run up a bunch of student loan debt when they were in school because college was way cheaper 30 years ago than it is today, just like health care for the 50 year olds was a lot cheaper 30 years ago than it is today.  Why do I have to subsidize their rising costs if they aren't willing to subsidize mine?"
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Pointedstick » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:42 pm

MediumTex wrote: "Okay.  Are the 50 year olds going to be helping the 30 year olds pay off their student loan debt as well?  I mean, that's fair, right?  The 50 year olds didn't have to run up a bunch of student loan debt when they were in school because college was way cheaper 30 years ago than it is today, just like health care for the 50 year olds was a lot cheaper 30 years ago than it is today.  Why do I have to subsidize their rising costs if they aren't willing to subsidize mine?"
Now if only people who thought that way voted. My, how different things would be.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
notsheigetz
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by notsheigetz » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:54 pm

MediumTex wrote: If you explained to some 30 year old that the idea is to make the 30 year olds pay more into the system than they get out so that the 50 year olds can get more out than they pay in, I can imagine him saying something like:

"Okay.  Are the 50 year olds going to be helping the 30 year olds pay off their student loan debt as well?  I mean, that's fair, right?  The 50 year olds didn't have to run up a bunch of student loan debt when they were in school because college was way cheaper 30 years ago than it is today, just like health care for the 50 year olds was a lot cheaper 30 years ago than it is today.  Why do I have to subsidize their rising costs if they aren't willing to subsidize mine?"
Basically, I think you are saying that once the 30-year-olds understand how socialism really works, as opposed to what they have been led to believe during their years of youthful indoctrination, they won't like it so well.

I think this is very possible, and maybe even probable.
This space available for rent.
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by MediumTex » Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:10 pm

notsheigetz wrote:
MediumTex wrote: If you explained to some 30 year old that the idea is to make the 30 year olds pay more into the system than they get out so that the 50 year olds can get more out than they pay in, I can imagine him saying something like:

"Okay.  Are the 50 year olds going to be helping the 30 year olds pay off their student loan debt as well?  I mean, that's fair, right?  The 50 year olds didn't have to run up a bunch of student loan debt when they were in school because college was way cheaper 30 years ago than it is today, just like health care for the 50 year olds was a lot cheaper 30 years ago than it is today.  Why do I have to subsidize their rising costs if they aren't willing to subsidize mine?"
Basically, I think you are saying that once the 30-year-olds understand how socialism really works, as opposed to what they have been led to believe during their years of youthful indoctrination, they won't like it so well.

I think this is very possible, and maybe even probable.
Yeah, a lot of things are going to suck going forward for people in the 25-45 age group right now.

They are still struggling with the own student loans and they will soon be trying to send their own kids to college.  During the remainder of their careers they will also have to pay enough in taxes for the government to support a vastly expanded population of old people who are no longer working.

To add insult to injury, members of this generation of people who have had (and will continue to have) so many hands in their pockets, whose members have gone off to fight and get blown up all over the world in dumb wars, who will be paying many of the bills for the generation that came before them as well as the generation that will come after them, who don't have access to the defined benefit pension plans that their parents and grandparents did, and who have had mostly crappy investment performance their entire investing careers (which will make it much harder for them to retire than it was for their parents) are commonly thought of as slackers.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
notsheigetz
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by notsheigetz » Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:47 pm

MediumTex wrote: Yeah, a lot of things are going to suck going forward for people in the 25-45 age group right now.

They are still struggling with the own student loans and they will soon be trying to send their own kids to college.  During the remainder of their careers they will also have to pay enough in taxes for the government to support a vastly expanded population of old people who are no longer working.
The whole student loan/cost of education thing boggles my mind. I managed to save enough money working part-time as a busboy in high school to pay my tuition at the Ohio State University. My how things have changed.

I have co-workers about 10 years younger than me putting kids through college without loans and although they don't share the full extent of it I get the impression it is VERY expensive. There was a time when sending your kids away to a nice college was considered an upper-class thing but now it seems to be a required ticket just to enter the middle class.

I think it is eventually going to sink in with the younger generations about the debts that we have been heaping upon them. In fact, I have seen it already in comments expressed in a few forums. The level of vitriol has been kind of eye-opening.
This space available for rent.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Libertarian666 » Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:12 pm

MediumTex wrote:
notsheigetz wrote:
MediumTex wrote: If you explained to some 30 year old that the idea is to make the 30 year olds pay more into the system than they get out so that the 50 year olds can get more out than they pay in, I can imagine him saying something like:

"Okay.  Are the 50 year olds going to be helping the 30 year olds pay off their student loan debt as well?  I mean, that's fair, right?  The 50 year olds didn't have to run up a bunch of student loan debt when they were in school because college was way cheaper 30 years ago than it is today, just like health care for the 50 year olds was a lot cheaper 30 years ago than it is today.  Why do I have to subsidize their rising costs if they aren't willing to subsidize mine?"
Basically, I think you are saying that once the 30-year-olds understand how socialism really works, as opposed to what they have been led to believe during their years of youthful indoctrination, they won't like it so well.

I think this is very possible, and maybe even probable.
Yeah, a lot of things are going to suck going forward for people in the 25-45 age group right now.

They are still struggling with the own student loans and they will soon be trying to send their own kids to college.  During the remainder of their careers they will also have to pay enough in taxes for the government to support a vastly expanded population of old people who are no longer working.
Have to? Any government program can be terminated without notice if you get a working majority with Congress and the President. In another 20 years or so there aren't going to be that many old people relative to the younger ones, who are going to be very tired of paying for everything.
MediumTex wrote: To add insult to injury, members of this generation of people who have had (and will continue to have) so many hands in their pockets, whose members have gone off to fight and get blown up all over the world in dumb wars, who will be paying many of the bills for the generation that came before them as well as the generation that will come after them, who don't have access to the defined benefit pension plans that their parents and grandparents did, and who have had mostly crappy investment performance their entire investing careers (which will make it much harder for them to retire than it was for their parents) are commonly thought of as slackers.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Pointedstick » Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:17 pm

notsheigetz wrote: The whole student loan/cost of education thing boggles my mind. I managed to save enough money working part-time as a busboy in high school to pay my tuition at the Ohio State University. My how things have changed.

I have co-workers about 10 years younger than me putting kids through college without loans and although they don't share the full extent of it I get the impression it is VERY expensive.
It's like $50k+ for a public school and $150k+ for a private school. I know someone who's currently attending a private liberal arts school (the worst offenders IMHO) whose total cost is in the realm of $250k I believe. Don't ask if she's studying anything of economic value. You really don't want to know.

The good news is that if you're poor, schools with a high endowment will often waive much or all of the cost. The bad news is that if you were responsible and saved the money, they just take it. Surprise! >:(
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: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Kshartle » Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:41 am

Pointedstick wrote:
notsheigetz wrote: The whole student loan/cost of education thing boggles my mind. I managed to save enough money working part-time as a busboy in high school to pay my tuition at the Ohio State University. My how things have changed.

I have co-workers about 10 years younger than me putting kids through college without loans and although they don't share the full extent of it I get the impression it is VERY expensive.
It's like $50k+ for a public school and $150k+ for a private school. I know someone who's currently attending a private liberal arts school (the worst offenders IMHO) whose total cost is in the realm of $250k I believe. Don't ask if she's studying anything of economic value. You really don't want to know.

The good news is that if you're poor, schools with a high endowment will often waive much or all of the cost. The bad news is that if you were responsible and saved the money, they just take it. Surprise! >:(
Wait the government scheme to help make higher education more affordable and achievable for young people has resulted in skyrocketing prices and worthless degrees? Who could have predicted that government subsidies would lead to higher prices and over-supply?

hmmmmmm?

What is going to happen with heathcare now? hmmmmmm

Maybe if the government can just borrow and spend we can have a "beautiful deleveraging".
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8864
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Pointedstick » Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:44 am

Kshartle wrote: Wait the government scheme to help make higher education more affordable and achievable for young people has resulted in skyrocketing prices and worthless degrees? Who could have predicted that government subsidies would lead to higher prices and over-supply?
All of us here?
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: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Libertarian666 » Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:53 am

Pointedstick wrote:
Kshartle wrote: Wait the government scheme to help make higher education more affordable and achievable for young people has resulted in skyrocketing prices and worthless degrees? Who could have predicted that government subsidies would lead to higher prices and over-supply?
All of us here?
Most maybe, but somehow I doubt "all".
Kshartle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Kshartle » Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:55 am

Pointedstick wrote:
Kshartle wrote: Wait the government scheme to help make higher education more affordable and achievable for young people has resulted in skyrocketing prices and worthless degrees? Who could have predicted that government subsidies would lead to higher prices and over-supply?
All of us here?
That would be nice but sadly there are still people here that think government spending can somehow help something. Redistributing wealth, preventing prices from falling, doing this scheme or that. Many posters still think wealth and savings come from the gubmit.
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 9:59 am

Kshartle wrote:
Pointedstick wrote:
Kshartle wrote: Wait the government scheme to help make higher education more affordable and achievable for young people has resulted in skyrocketing prices and worthless degrees? Who could have predicted that government subsidies would lead to higher prices and over-supply?
All of us here?
That would be nice but sadly there are still people here that think government spending can somehow help something. Redistributing wealth, preventing prices from falling, doing this scheme or that. Many posters still think wealth and savings come from the gubmit.
We never said wealth comes from the government. We just said that the currency we use to represent our savings either comes from the government or private credit — which is true. The overwhelming majority of our currency comes from private credit. Government spending pales in comparison.

Obviously the Treasury spending on something will cause that something to rise in prices. That is obvious. We all agree on that.

But, you guys still don't understand the difference between a monetary operation and a fiscal operation. The Fed can only change the composition of our dollar-denominate assets, while the Treasury — for better of for worse — increases our dollar-denominates assets. If you want to argue that Treasury spending is bad, knock yourself out. I'm not arguing the merits of Treasury fiscal spending one way or the other.

But, if you don't think that banks don't "print" the overwhelming majority of the money in our society, you're burying your head in the sand.
Last edited by Gumby on Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

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

Gumby wrote: I'm not arguing the merits of Treasury fiscal spending one way or the other.
Wait how do we get Ray's "beautiful deleveraging"?
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 10:08 am

Kshartle wrote:
Gumby wrote: I'm not arguing the merits of Treasury fiscal spending one way or the other.
Wait how do we get Ray's "beautiful deleveraging"?
He called it "beautiful". I didn't.

Either way, you need to not get so emotional about the mechanics. We are just describing what happens during "reflation".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflation

Nobody has to like it. It's just what the government does. And truth be told, all this stuff is so wonkish, there is no way to know if any of this is "good" or "bad" until decades from now.
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: 3559
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:38 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

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

Gumby wrote:
Kshartle wrote:
Gumby wrote: I'm not arguing the merits of Treasury fiscal spending one way or the other.
Wait how do we get Ray's "beautiful deleveraging"?
He called it "beautiful". I didn't.

Either way, you need to not get so emotional about the mechanics. We are just describing what happens during "reflation".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflation

Nobody has to like it. It's just what the government does. And truth be told, all this stuff is so wonkish, there is no way to know if any of this is "good" or "bad" until decades from now.
Wait I thought his video was slam dunk correct. Are you disagreeing with it or just saying there's no way to know if he's right?
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 10:13 am

And, ultimately, my main argument is that there is huge difference between Treasury spending (i.e. FISCAL operations) and Federal Reserve swaps (i.e. MONETARY operations).

Treasury spending puts money in people's pockets and dilutes the purchasing power.

Federal Reserve swaps doesn't add any purchasing power to anyone's pockets. It just changes the composition of our savings.

They are two different things. The Fed would have a difficult time raising the cost of tuition, because it can't give people additional savings to pay for college.
Last edited by Gumby on Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
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.
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 10:16 am

Kshartle wrote:Wait I thought his video was slam dunk correct. Are you disagreeing with it or just saying there's no way to know if he's right?
The video describes the mechanics of what the monetary system almost perfectly. But, just because the mechanics are correct, doesn't mean the policy is good or bad. You understand the difference, right?

That's why an anarchist should be able to grasp MR. MR doesn't condone the system, it just describes how it operates. You can use that knowledge to oppose the system if you choose.
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: 3559
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: 3559
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: 8864
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: 3559
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!
Post Reply