Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: From the mind of Peter Schiff on Occupy Together, the free-market economist who predicted the Great Recession (the reason you occupy) and was laughed at

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 15, 2011, 10:18 p.m. EST by apell1992 (51)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iJvtQpyx1A&feature=channel_video_title

"Instead of occupying Wall Street, they should be occupying Pennsylvania Avenue. Instead of protesting the banks that were bailed out, they should protest the government that bailed them out. …that's what's failed them. It's not capitalism, but the lack of capitalism. …They're upset about the bailouts - the bailouts of the banks, corporate welfare - but that's not capitalism; maybe it's crony capitalism, or corporatism, or statism, or socialism, or facism. There are a lot of -isms that you can label this but the one -ism that doesn't apply is capitalism, because under capitalism, the banks would've failed. They wouldn't have been bailed-out, there would be no corporate welfare. In fact, if we had capitalism, there really wouldn't have been a housing bubble. If we had capitalism, there wouldn't have been a financial crisis, so the protesters would have nothing to protest. …all of these problems are being blamed on capitalism but they have nothing to do with capitalism. … some of [Occupy Wall Street’s] demands…are very Socialist in nature. …more government, more socialism, but what is driving the protests is what they're demanding. They're protesting the absence of capitalism. The Occupy Wall Street movement is really arguing for more capitalism whether they know it or not. One of their demands is the complete forgiveness of all the student loans, but…why are those student loans there in the first place? The students are protesting the banks that loaned them the money, but…the only reason the banks loaned the money is because the government guaranteed the loans. If the government wasn't there to guarantee the loans, the banks wouldn't have loaned the students any money so there would be no student debt outstanding. In fact, what would have happened if there were no government-guaranteed student loans is colleges would have been forced to lower tuitions dramatically so that kids could afford to go there without borrowing the money. It's not capitalism that's driving up college tuitions; it's not capitalism that is saddling our young people with all these student loans, it's government that's doing that. Rather than protesting capitalism, they need to protest government. If we really had Capitalism, the truth is, those people who are now occupying Wall Street wouldn't have any time to occupy Wall Street - they'd be too busy working! They'd have good jobs in a vibrant free-market economy. The reason they have all this spare time on their hands is because the government has destroyed their opportunities. That's what they need to protest - not capitalism.” -Peter Schiff

15 Comments

15 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 13 years ago

Fuck that lying tool.

Why is the government doing what it does?

Who wrote the health care law?

Who writes student loan legislation?

Why did Joe Biden sponsor bankruptcy reform?

Because "free market capitalists" lobby and fund these fuckers.

http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

[-] 2 points by stevemiller (1062) 13 years ago

thank you

[-] 1 points by apell1992 (51) 13 years ago

He's not lying about ANYTHING. Everything he's saying is common sense, god forbid any of you Keynesian-touting occupants recognize that gift.

To assert that free market capitalists "lobby" proves you don't understand the free market. Free market economists DO NOT BELIEVE in the power of taking control of the public sector. That's completely the opposite of what it's about. Free market leaves the market FREE from the government, while the alternative, Keynesian economics, is what imposes the will of the corporations on the people.

[-] 2 points by FuManchu (619) 13 years ago

I dont uderstany why its not occupy washington. They are the ones who failed in their duty. It was their job and they failed. We should protest the bribe takers instead of one of the various bribe givers. Somehow the people think the government is still ok. Almost like the government is a victim as well. Sometimes that makes me think the OWS is a pro democratic party movement.

[-] 2 points by BlankDice (30) 13 years ago

"Free market leaves the market FREE from the government, while the alternative, Keynesian economics, is what imposes the will of the corporations on the people."

I think the OWS standpoint is to keep the GOVERNMENT free from the MARKET. Is that not essentially the same thing you want? I guess the difference is that the market wants more power and you are cool with that. However, the market wants more power, and here we are going "Hey, step back!" We realize that the market has too much power. They have too much money, and they can essentially buy anything they want... even elections and legislation. I feel it is time to pass on the torch. In a democratic society, the people have the power. Corporations, "The Market", are NOT people. Give the power back to the living, breathing, tax paying citizens. We need someone or something to influence the market for a while. Hell, that is what the market needs.

*Disclaimer: My views do not necessarily represent that of Occupy Wall Street, or any of it's subsidiaries. And, I think you are an ass.

[-] 2 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 13 years ago

Exactly why I put free market capitalist in quotes. This ideal free market doesn't exist here in America.

[-] 1 points by apell1992 (51) 13 years ago

You're correct.

[-] 0 points by myne (23) from Fitzroy, VIC 13 years ago
[-] 0 points by an0n (764) 13 years ago

You folks just keep coming and coming. The solution to a massive market failure (blah blah it wasn't pure - it NEVER will be) is to return us to the policies of the Gilded Age. http://occupywallst.org/forum/im-out/

Get with the program or get out. Left & right are working to find common ground and a shared set of goals. This is polarizing and extreme. End all regulation (and we're not dumb, we know that's what you mean by capitalism) in response to a failure of DEregulation.. the gall.

[-] 0 points by apell1992 (51) 13 years ago

You think your ideas are any more valid than mine? I happen to know the success of the free market because I understand it, unlike many people.

I don't represent the left or the right. To claim such is disrespectful. Get with the program? No, thank you. I subscribe to the program that I BELIEVE IN and I will stand by it until I'm shown a better alternative, which is unlikely because I stand for freedom of choice. No other alternative supports that idea like the free market does. Once you understand THAT, then you'll have an epiphany.

Peter Schiff didn't lie about anything. And he's not a tool. Like any successful economist, he stands by what he says and will defend it to the death.

To assert that free market capitalists "lobby" proves you don't understand the free market. Free market economists DO NOT BELIEVE in the power of taking control of the public sector. That's completely the opposite of what it's about. Free market leaves the market FREE from the government, while the alternative, Keynesian economics, is what imposes the will of the corporations on the people.

Why don't you get that WE WANT THE SAME THING? We both want corporations out of our government but you need (NEED) to understand that corporations in government and government in corporations are the two sides to the same coin. You either give the government control over your life or you stand on the side of freedom. I will NEVER allow anyone to control my life. I can choose what to buy from whom I buy it. I can choose to save, to work hard, to protect MYSELF because THOSE (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) are my rights. No one is entitled to a job, to education, to health unless he works for it. If you believe that, then you find yourself on the same side of history as those who tried to rewrite the Constitution and give power to those who are easily corrupted.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 13 years ago

There are no "free market capitalists." Capitalists will use whatever tools they can find to make a profit. In your utopian free market system there''s no public sector to take control of, fine - not realistic - but fine. However there's nothing different about the capitalist people in your system. They will be the same people we have now. If there are a few who are ethical now, that you're apparently thinking about, they will still be a minority then.

The difference will be that the unethical will have all the advantages that a complete lack of regulations provide, to be the nasty fucks they are, with only "market forces" (that traditionally reward bad behavior by the way) to regulate them. Yes, they won't be manipulating government to get what they want because they'll have what they want (us, our wealth, our resources) opened up to them for the taking, no strings attached.

Without a regulatory framework you're right, there will be less government corruption because government will barely have a purpose to serve, while wealth further accumulates with the 1%, the planet is raped, and the middle class is utterly destroyed. The Gilded Age, here we come, again.

Where we are now:

"Data from the United States Department of Commerce and Internal Revenue Service indicate that income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s, whereas it had been declining during the mid 20th century. As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia or Turkey, being one of only a few developed countries where inequality has increased since 1980." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

Is directly attributed to deregulation, free trade, and smaller government. Functionally no government, which is what you're talking about, will be worse - just read that article from the above link (in my initial comment).

PS - my point was never to convince you of my point of view, but to ask you and all the Austrian economists and all the rest to stop making this movement about you and YOUR point of view. We have some shared goals we COULD agree on that have to do with corruption, rather than changing the size of government... Or, from your market purist standpoint can you not even agree to Glass-Steagal?

Some really good reading on Keynes if you could maybe reconsider your hatred of him (because you don't understand him at all if you blame him for bank bailouts, for example): http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24240

[-] 0 points by MiMi1026 (937) from Springfield, VA 13 years ago

They all laughed and no one listened ;~/