Peter Schiff Responds to Obama's Speech

[MMIKEYJ]

A video a little over 9 minutes.. Take the time to watch this. This video might save you thousands of dollars in the next year or two.

I know most of you despise our current system and embrace communism, but as long as you're forced to use the fiat currency system it would behoove you to prepare yourselves financially.




Peter Schiff Responds to Obamas Speech (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/84120)

[Communist Theory]

You secretly love us. . . :lol:

[IcarusAngel]

And this is why a majority of economists claim to be economic liberals, correct? Because Paultard economics works.

Face it, not only is your economic royalism totalitarian and elitist, and favors the wealthy, it has been shown by modern economics to not even work correctly.

[Self-Owner]

And this is why a majority of economists claim to be economic liberals, correct? Because Paultard economics works.

Face it, not only is your economic royalism totalitarian and elitist, and favors the wealthy, it has been shown by modern economics to not even work correctly.

As opposed to modern economics which clearly, just clearly, is working out great?

It's also really interesting to note the kind of cherry picking that goes on when you talk about 'modern economics'. I have yet to see you argue that the labour theory of value, or Marxian exploitation, are entirely incorrect concepts - after all, they have been shown false by modern economics. Of course, you only believe it when it suits you.

[Dejavu]

As opposed to modern economics which clearly, just clearly, is working out great?

It's also really interesting to note the kind of cherry picking that goes on when you talk about 'modern economics'. I have yet to see you argue that the labour theory of value, or Marxian exploitation, are entirely incorrect concepts - after all, they have been shown false by modern economics. Of course, you only believe it when it suits you.


I typically don't respond to someone like IA because his intent is not the further promotion of knowledge and truth seeking but has this smug attitude that seeks to pompously shut out opposing views.

I'd be more than happy to have a debate/discussion with IA on skype or some kind of real time interactive program ( that is providing he checks his arrogance in at the door before entering :) )

[Dejavu]

And this is why a majority of economists claim to be economic liberals, correct? Because Paultard economics works.

Face it, not only is your economic royalism totalitarian and elitist, and favors the wealthy, it has been shown by modern economics to not even work correctly.

I've divided the claims here separated by italics and bold.


Here is what is wrong with this. Lets number them.

1. Majority of economists... If this is your reasoning behind an argument then it is fallacious. Arguments to Popularity wont get you far in a real debate. Try again.

2. Because Paultard economics works... This is worth nothing. Add a little more substance and leave out the petty insults.

3. not only is your economic royalism totalitarian and elitist, and favors the wealthy, it has been shown by modern economics to not even work correctly.

Ah, more catchphrases and Isms/Ists thrown out there for our entertainment. Of course, none of this is substantiated nor is the meaning of this in anyway cleared up.

Tell you what, why don't you download skype ( www.skype.com (http://www.skype.com)), its free, and sign up and we'll have a real discussion regarding these pretty big ( unsubstantiated) claims you are making. :D

[IcarusAngel]

I've divided the claims here separated by italics and bold.
1. Majority of economists... If this is your reasoning behind an argument then it is fallacious. Arguments to Popularity wont get you far in a real debate. Try again.

It isn't an appearl to popularity.

First of all let's make it clear that you know nothing about logic and reason. To show something is fallacious, you must DEMONSTRATE that it is fallacious, you do not do so.

An "appeal to authority" is when you say "I'm right" or "X is right" because "so and so says it's right." This only becomes fallacious when you appeal to an anonymous authority, the authority in question is not an expert, or you base your sole position on something merely because the majority supports it.

In this case, I was pointing out how STUPID it is for that gentleman to claim that "Obama knows nothing about economics" when in fact a majority of economists are liberals and numerous experts have signed off on his policies and they are based in current economic methodologies and trends.

Economics is a social science that is heavily ideological, so the current trends are indeed worth nothing when anybody is claiming that someone else "doesn't know anything about economics."


2. Because Paultard economics works... This is worth nothing. Add a little more substance and leave out the petty insults.

As someone scientific minded, I like to appeal to evidence from history, and the evidence from history shows that capitalism is a failure.

I agree "Paultard" was an insult, but I was not saying he was wrong solely for being a Paultard.

The racists, sexists, homophobes, and fascists in the "Libertarian-Capitalist" movement make me laugh at them at times.


Ah, more catchphrases and Isms/Ists thrown out there for our entertainment. Of course, none of this is substantiated nor is the meaning of this in anyway cleared up.

It isn't "catch phrasim."

I was merely pointing out that the economic royalism Libertarians support leads to totalitarianism, both in theory, and in practice.

There is no difference between a king and a landowner who has achieved a monopoly on the resources - his control over the population is the same.

And on the theoretical side, Libertarians have no objection to monopolies, provided they came about in a "market," even if these are actions that have taken place far before the current society is even borning (meaning that these monopolies have been so firmly entrenched that it's ridiculous to say they have a choice - as noted above, this economic royalism is equivalent to serfdom).


Tell you what, why don't you download skype ( www.skype.com (http://www.skype.com)), its free, and sign up and we'll have a real discussion regarding these pretty big ( unsubstantiated) claims you are making. :D

I have no interest in joining you, self-owner, and trivas7 in a flame war on the "skype" program.

If any of you had any reasonable defense of the totalitarian economic royalism that you support, you'd have provided it when you signed up on the board, instead of propagating a bunch of asinine, one-line propaganda statements lifted from Libertarian websites.

The fact is you and the other Libertarians have already engaged in numerous blatant lies on this forum, my favorite being from you claiming that diploma mill Universities like "Devry" graduate the best computer programmers.

Your ignorance of both technology and political systems is absolutely baffling.

It is clear you have no grasp on reality whatsoever.

[коровьев]

As someone scientific minded, I like to appeal to evidence from history, and the evidence from history shows that capitalism is a failure.

examples of free markets being a failure please?

[IcarusAngel]

I typically don't respond to someone like IA because his intent is not the further promotion of knowledge and truth seeking but has this smug attitude that seeks to pompously shut out opposing views.

"I do not respond to someone like IA who rightly rejects my ridiculous assumptions about the word and my penchant for free-market fundamentalism and fascism, which is the only 'philosophy' I spend my time studying."

I actually am critical from capitalism from several perspectives, not just Marxism. I agree that many of Marx's methodologies were probably flawed; I am not a Marxist, I am an anarchist, but a realist Libertarian-Socialist who would also favor some other forms of anti-capitalism, perhaps even utilitarianism.

Marx rightly tried to study how capitalism is exploitative, that he was wrong in some areas in his calculations does not take away from the fact that capitalism is a landlord system with resources being controlled by the elites. This is one of the most documented theories in all of the social sciences, it's not just Marxism. Numerous intellectuals have brought it up, even the former president of the American Political Science Association referred to the market as a "prison system."

As Noam Chomsky, a real anarchist, not a totalitarian economic royalist like Rothbard, points out so candidly, that just because an system is successful economically, does not mean it is justified. Stalism was for a while quite economically successful. Colonial slavery could have went on for centuries had attitudes about slavery not changed. It was very sustainable, and existed longer than capitalism. Numerous other totalitarian societies (such as feudalism) went on for decades, or centuries.

Mainly, what real anarchists oppose, is the consolidation of resources by the capitalist class which leads to masters and rulers, which is naturally rejected by anarchists. If you had arguments perhaps this is something that could actually be discussed - but the simple truth is no anarchist would theoretically allow tyranny and rulers.

[MMIKEYJ]

Peter Schiff makes it very simple to understand. If you disagree, well then you disagree. But its common sense in my book.