This has me utterly baffled. Peter Schiff is a pretty bright guy, and for a long time he's been a vocal advocate of the sound money and libertarian economic viewpoints. That's why I'm wondering if he's had a stroke recently, because he's done more to marginalize his own point of view over the past six weeks than the army of his detractors has managed in the past decade.
Near as I can tell, he started jumping the shark in December when he posted a video of himself ostensibly protesting against Wal-Mart workers protesting for higher wages. It was tongue in cheek, and not a completely outlandish point to make, but it begs the question: where does a millionaire CEO find the time to protest against minimum wage workers in a Wal-Mart parking lot? And why the hell would he?
It was all downhill from there. He appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast on January 22 and I couldn't believe what I was hearing. He spent three solid hours railing against government regulation of any kind and, when pressed on the environmental impact of disasters like the BP spill and the growing sentiment against fracking, his attitude was basically, "F the environment, I'm getting paid."
But the piece de resistance was his appearance on The Daily Show last Tuesday, where he opined that people should work for anything they can get, and that the mentally retarded should be happy to get $2 an hour.
I'm frankly stunned. Schiff has always been a fringe player, but he could also always be counted on for his rationality. Now he's either trolling, or he's legitimately off his rocker. Even if he believes all the things he's said recently (and I have no reason to suspect otherwise), why on Earth would he be vocalizing them? Has watching his precious gold meltdown sent him over the edge?
Bottom line: this is still a guy with a business to run and customers to serve. How could he possibly think that a Daily Show appearance (where you know you're going to be made fun of) was a good idea? There's nothing but downside there. And how could he think that he'd come off as anything other than pompous and petty for protesting against minimum wage workers? The guy is annihilating his own brand.
What do you guys think? Should Schiff see a shrink before he does any more damage? Or is he just trolling all of us?
For reference:
Schiff protesting WalMart workers:
Joe Rogan Experience:
Daily Show:
He's a smart man who believes in the absence of government intervention in what would otherwise constitute a free market transaction. That has always been a part of his brand, nothing has changed.
Schiff just had the balls to say what everyone was thinking.
Well said, @"Sling Shot". Also, I think it boils down to the the fact that there are two kinds of people in this world: those that believe America is beyond saving and those that think it can be saved in time.
Yet, he touts investments in China and emerging markets with far more intervention than the U.S. or other developed economies.
Just like how Jon Stewart wants to raise the minimum wage but pays his interns nothing.
Why wouldn't he? Intervention is merely an inefficiency and does not unreservedly remove the whole of economic profit from the exchange of goods and services. There is still plenty of opportunity in even the most repressed and controlled regions, principally those with rapidly modernizing socioeconomic factors.
I think you're giving him way too much credit to begin with. He's the biggest egomaniac I've ever seen, almost like a small scale Charles Foster Kane lol. I see him as being more lucky with his "call" for 2008-2009 than anything else. His strategy of leaving US markets for Chinese markets has been devastating for people who follow him. He's incredibly rigid in his analysis but extremely flexible in his timeline which allows him to always be correct at some point. I've never been impressed with him whatsoever. I thought his visit to occupy wall street was humorous, but his latest protests are pretty ridiculous. Unfortunately, I think he will continue to be more popular and we'll have to put up with his antics for the foreseeable future.
Maybe he just wants to run as a Republican at some senate race or something.
He has already been chief economic advisory to Ron Paul's Presidential campaign.
Definitely rough around the edges, but he was spot on about subprime as early as 2006 when every analyst on CNBC and Bloomberg were laughing in his face. I wouldn't call that luck.
When you predict a market crash every year without fail, you're bound to be right sooner or later.
The dude is acting in a totally rational way. Seriously if you really get down to it he is trying to cause economic confusion. Why protest min wage raises? Keeps the poor down, they have less money to spend the economy stays where it is. The whole point is to keep the economy is a fear zone while he unloads his gold positions with as a little loss as possible. If everyone is farting rainbows and the lowest paid people in the country make 100k a year his gold would either be worthless or be worth a fuck ton. It's obvious what his position is.
This guy is ridiculous. He chooses his audiences by making sure they know nothing about economics. OWS? Walmart shoppers? Look up videos of him arguing with actual economists, he looks like an idiot every time. The only way Walmart workers can make more is if prices are raised?... wow. Also, if you make a prediction and then put ZERO time frame on it- you'll "eventually" be right. His inflation non-sense is nauseating. He thinks that putting money into the economy = inflation. Complete disregard for any resemblance of aggregate demand and whether said money is actually being used (and its velocity). Let alone the concept of excess capacity on the supply side. And as far as his subprime prediction, can someone explain to me why people who predicted that are some kind of prophets? Absolute shit was being underwritten and then packaged numerous times, into numerous securities. The only reason so few people made the call was because so few people knew about the horrendous underwriting that was going on. Investors should be salivating at the idea of getting such a free lunch again.
Velocity of money can change rapidly. Just because velocity of money is low right now doesn't mean it will stay like that in the future.
I like Schiff, but agree with Eddie. This dude isn't retired and doing his own thing. He is the face and head of a firm that manages money and employes people. He needs to be a lot more tactful in his actions. If he wants to step down and just go rogue, good for him, but until that happens he needs to be a better representative of his firm.
On top of that, he has to live down that fact that his old man is in the Federal pen for 13 years for his own anti-government craziness. You'd think old Pete would try to stay under the radar.
Have you heard of Soros, Buffet, Icahn, Schwarzman, Gore, ect. As long as he is not hosting naked pool parties it should not hurt him. Then again, it may just be that any publicly is good publicity.
I agree with you to an extent, but I just think all those people you mentioned are a lot more composed and rational in their PR than Schiff. I mean I don't see Soros antagonizing people who barely graduated high school on incredibly complex topics.
He probably has a lot more hidden agendas now than ever as a result of where he is now vs where he was in 2006. Perhaps.
People that have too much conviction in their ideas, right or wrong, annoy the hell out of me.
Considering his perma-goldbug schtick, I've never counted on Schiff for his rationality. But that TDS interview was pretty stunning nonetheless. The Tom Perkins meltdown was more spectacular and suprising to me.
The end of the Daily Show interview was literally cringeworthy.
I remember when he debated the OWS people. Many of them were Ron Paul supporters; he told them to occupy Washington instead.
//www.youtube.com/embed/ahMGoB01qiA
The best thing to do with an asshat is just to ignore him.
He's way too invested in his ideas. He has basically gambled his reputation, if he turns out to be right about the economy, his reputation will be restored and probably increase. If he is wrong (which it seems like he is) then his reputation is tarnished forever. To me he seems bonkers. He could hold his opinions without running around saying crazy shit. Don't all these rich pricks know by now how important PR is and that they need to be politically correct?
Schiff doesn't need to be politically correct. His audience, clients, etc. probably consume his products BECAUSE of his political incorrectness.
Exactly.. and that's what many of us love about him.
His brand for his target audience has never been better. Eddie seems to think his target audience the majority of Americans, while it doesn't come close.
I would be embarrassed if the majority of Americans agreed with what I have to say, because that means I had to lie to get the approval of idiots.
Did he really say no one goes hungry in a capitalist market and that the poor have plenty of food....His good points are overshadowed by ridiculous statements like that.
Actually obesity is a much more pressing issue than hunger in countries with functional markets. Food is more available than ever because of more efficient supply chains and pricing.
Yes, that is our system. Uneducated/poor work for McDonald's --> can only afford to eat McDonald's --> become fat --> rinse, repeat
The 15% of US households that are "food insecure" would argue against that. And a diet of McDonald's should hardly count as food.
You mistake America for a capitalist free market...
Peter Schiff in 2009:
-Long gold -Short the US -Short Asia
Why are we still listening to this guy?
Not right to pick out a sole year which happened to mark the ultimate bottom into this liquidity-fueled lift-a-thon in risk as we've seen from then till now.
Dunno if you followed him before his subprime call (starting in 2006, as someone else already pointed out) but he's been long gold ever since the 90s. Regarding short Asia, he doubled down in 2012, which seems to be the right move today as per the px action.
Short US, nay, not being LONG the US was one of the worst calls ever, but i think it's fair to say many smart funds out there missed the gravy train from 09-12 only to really go all in last year. He still hasn't given in, and nor do i think he will, not until at least the next crash (2014, 2015?) occurs.
That meme that accompanies this article is funny, but memes shouldn't contain paragraphs
Ok, so I get people thinking it is dumb for Schiff to bring up the BP spill, but does anyone actually think the government did a good job? Plenty of reports saying that the oil is simply weighted down on the bottom of the ocean and/or dispersed into fine particles in the water. Essentially papering over the issue.
Not saying allowing BP to say fuck off is right, but this idea that government is the last bastion of honestly for the common man is comical.
"Food Insecure"
The US has so much cheap and plentiful food that this is bullshit. I am fine with discussing all kinds of poverty issues, but no one is starving in this country. I have plenty of money and I go a day or more without eating all the fucking time.
Gotta love one of the fattest nations pimping food insecurity.
I don't think people are really propagating the idea that people in the US are going hungry. More that the low income families and individuals cannot afford quality food, which in turn leads to: obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc.; which lead to another set of problems.
This is spot on...
I think there is a distinction between actual food (all the organic chit I buy) and stuff that simply fills you up with empty calories and no nutritional value (McDonald's, Taco Bell, etc). Without vitamins, minerals, etc, you might as well just be eating potato chips and poo.
Except for the fact that the price of fresh food has declined as a share of income, consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables per person has increased secularly while the consumption of processed fruit and vegetables has been largely stagnant or declining, availability of fresh fruit and vegetables has increased, etc. Eating healthy (or unhealthy!) has never been cheaper relative to income than it is today.
Regarding the DailyShow, he wrote the following:
''Everyone keeps asking why I would agree to be interviewed by "The Daily Show," knowing well the program's poor reputation for journalistic integrity. I'll tell you why. Take a look at the written assurance the show's producers sent me before I agreed to anything.
From: Redacted [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:13 PM To: Andrew Schiff Subject: RE: FW: The Daily Show
We NEVER edit out of context. Meaning we never ever show responses to a question we never asked. For starters it LOOKS BAD! But in all seriousness it's not our prerogative to attack our interview subjects & slander them (unless they say really horrible, awful, racist things... but last I checked Peter doesn't say such things!).
The general idea is to pretend this is a real news interview & correct our correspondent when he/she asks goofy questions. Our questions usually come from misunderstanding the other side's arguments, for example. We want our interview subject to play the straight guy & that way they look normal & we look like the fool.
In this case Samantha Bee is our correspondent. She'll take things she heard at these fast food strikes & report them back to Peter. Peter tells Sam why she may be mistaken, or what the strikers aren't taking into account, etc. That's the general idea. And we'll go over all of this before we start up the cameras next week. (Peter & Jena can also discuss these concerns over the phone tomorrow.)
But rest assured-- NOTHING will be edited out of context.
If you guys have any other questions or concerns don't hesitate to bring them up!
Redacted The Daily Show with Jon Stewart 604 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019''
Link: http://www.schiffradio.com/b/EXCLUSIVE:-How-The-Daily-Show-Lies/-846064028400943500.html
From his FB he also added:
''I'll ask them to post the three plus hours of unedited footage they took. It really was some of my best stuff. I really clobbered all of Samantha's arguments. She was very frustrated. I'm pretty sure i convinced everyone else in the room that the minimum wage should be abolished.''
Honestly this makes it 100x worse. How naive could he possible be?
I can't believe Schiff went on the daily show. What a waste of his time. He should stick to actual news sites/shows instead of a comedy channel.
This was his 2nd time on the DS. The first time he went there he was praised by JS for calling the crisis.
Peter Schiff on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart... by PeterSchiff
I 'wish Milton Friedman were around today.
Because of this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E-URmNAa5o
There is an article of Neumark and Wascher on minimum wages and youth unemployment. a second one httpewecon.typepadfrarticleAEAsurvey.pdf Mankin also has good article on Cochrane theory.
Go to any recent immigrant community or household and you will see people eating rice, simple proteins, beans, drinking water, not wasting food. Most likely in those cultures you have people who are not used to fast food and think cooking is a normal aspect of society.
I wholeheartedly agree that (poor) immigrants in the US are likely to be much more thoughtful about their eating actions than (poor) domestic folks, especially in terms of fast food vs cooking.
I wouldn't want to be working at his firm.
Braverman: As one of my favorite contributors I think your thoughts are in the right place, but I do see Schiff as upping the ante on his trolling efforts. Many people referenced his self interest, or beating the same line of "imminent crash" as things that make his work less great, but I just see this as looking too far into what he is doing.
I have the utmost respect for Schiff for a lot of things that seemingly were also troll efforts. Such as "When Schiff goes to Washington" he later said in the Joe Rogan Experience, "Why would I give respect or kiss-up to people who are destroying our country." That's a truly passionate man trying to sound the alarms. Sure, he'd prefer to get into the US Senate and start up a storm on the debt ceiling, but he understands his work is going to be limited by the conditions that the economy is generally beyond fixable, given that people are not interested in it and the political incentives will always be the opposite of doing the right thing.
So kudos to Schiff for upping the ante... he is putting himself out on the limb to both benefit and be laughed at.. but is bringing much awareness to what lies ahead for the US.
As to the Daily Show piece, Schiff tells it how it is... but his response on his Facebook page was correct. They took 3 total hours of footage and condensed it to look like a 3 minute interview. The show doesn't care to mention that the "mentally deficient" are exempt from the minimum wage law already, or many other great points he highlights.
On the environment, like the BP disaster, he was again correct that government regulation facilitated the event. Let BP drill in shallow water after the same oil and that doesn't even have a chance of happening in the same fashion.. and remove the liability caps on such disasters. But like he said, you could keep all of the current regulation in place and more if we actually got a freer economy to work with at other levels.
Alright, I'll bite: Libertarians nowadays sound like communists, they talk about crony capitalism constantly, that's precisely what western modern communists have been saying for the USSR all along: it was crony/phony communism. Both observations are rather valid.
More to the point: the Federal Reserve, the Government et al are considered forces which dilute the market and economic freedom. Correct, there's no doubt. But my question is what if these forces have been an evolutionary step of the capitalist system? What libertarians fail to understand is that the economic elite cares more about its own survival and well being than the rest (even unconsciously). Yes, you might say that it's fair/their right much like it's for anyone, rich or poor. True true. But they do not understand it. Looking out for yourself can go a long long way, especially if you're a powerful capitalist. It means that a Federal reserve, protectionism, even welfare have positive correlation to your economic interests, much like the reduction of minimum wage, decrease of taxes and so on and so forth. It depends on the situation really and how best it fits the owners of capital.
On the contrary, that's precisely the point of capitalism: to mobilize self-interested economic actors for the betterment of society. It's the vehicle of government that restrains the ability of that mechanism to produce desirable ends.
Even if this was true, which it could be, the easy counter to this is that at some point, the rest of the world catches onto our either inflated or heightened economic prosperity... and either cuts us off slowly from the fruits of their labor or they pony up with their own versions.
It appears the world has been more willing to do the latter because they are not sure what will happen when the US is dominating the world economy. How else could you rationalize lending more money to us so we can turn around and spend it on unproductive things, such as interest on previous loans? Other countries are even countering by inflating their own currencies, because what better way to protect their own government/elite than to ensure that their citizens do not suddenly have a massive influx of new wealth. If they keep the US propped up, they stay in control too. I suspect this is part of why our "system" has stayed afloat so long despite being beyond fixable.
I have no doubt that welfare is in the best interest of the rich. But the system we have isn't benefiting the rich. It is used by politicians to keep themselves in power. A much better solution would be for a pooling of tax revenues and a fixed dollar amount just going to the poor to placate them. Less overhead, less government workers and no political influence to manipulate a voting block.
Here is Schiff's new video response to the Daily Show piece, for what it's worth. Pretty good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9LNP-yXXUc
I'm a right of center moderate and I'm not sure what the left of center moderates think on this or whether Schiff is going to get any traction with them.
Schiff is not a very bright financial advisor. And he's a bit of an asshole. But I now feel bad for him after knowing they took 4 hours of video to make a short segment.
Yea, Schiff does pretty well filtering his stuff a little bit but he didn't do his best. What I took from his follow up was how he broke down where they used 3+ conversations to make one complete played sentence even between him and the girl. He did pretty good on his campaign trail framing the issue, also hitting the point that inflation is the issue even more than minimum wage.
Not sure if I shared it previously, but this older video he has is also very good where he breaks down minimum wage with examples. Mainly I point to this as the best example of "him" as I can see he has dialed it up recently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_IMuxMXd3E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9LNP-yXXUc
I haven't really paid attention to him or his brother for a while as they are both salesmen who make money off doomers and bunker monkeys. As I got older I started to understand less and less why this guy got so much attention. He was on TV pontificating about gold and the housing bubble, but his clients lost money despite his prediction of pending doom. If the Mises Institute had any brains left at all for marketing, they would be showing the Schiff family the door and making Mark Spitznagel the face of those of who understand classically liberal economics.
I think all the monkey shit that has been thrown my way has been a result of the apocalyptards hating my disdain for Schiff. Among other things, he is a salesman first, not an investor. Additionally, these are all stupid battles that only make the libertarian movement look like a bunch of assholes. Going after Wal-Mart employees with GEDs and four teeth is really dumb despite the fact it is probably economically correct. Instead of calling a your local greeter an economic leach, start with SOFEX, where the US spends billions trying to get oppressive regimes to buy our military hardware so they can use it against their own citizens. That is way more money than food stamps or Wal-Mart greeters could ever wish to siphon off Uncle Sam's tits.
http://www.vice.com/vice-news/sofex-the-business-of-war-part-1
I wonder if bonus cuts for Walmart execs would add $1-$2 to each employee's rate?
Is this facetious? Total Walmart executive pay in FY2013 was $62.5mm. Walmart employs 2.2mm employees. That's a colossal $28 per person per year. Assuming a 30-hour work week and 50 weeks per year, that's less than $0.02 per hour raise for each employee.
Put a different way, if Walmart were spending $1-2 per hour per worker on executive pay, it would be compensating its CEO ~$1.1 - $2.3 billion per year.
Optio et expedita voluptatem voluptatem. Iusto vel accusamus consectetur nulla perferendis rem. Earum tempore optio in reprehenderit quibusdam. Eos fugit et ducimus vitae. Fuga eaque et nam aut.
Qui expedita dolore suscipit animi a blanditiis. Assumenda at at quidem nesciunt fuga minima ducimus nisi. Pariatur quo provident assumenda eius sed et libero. Et architecto dolores rerum nesciunt excepturi pariatur.
Laborum eligendi sint voluptatem totam. Recusandae illo dolores nemo amet qui sunt earum non. Error hic ipsa dolorem. Nihil cumque fugit consequuntur consequatur omnis quam.
Quia impedit ea omnis dolores quidem impedit ea omnis. Qui sit dignissimos exercitationem eaque iste doloremque quasi. Molestiae quae tempora sint nobis eum aperiam deleniti veritatis. Repudiandae qui enim dolor omnis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Qui facere modi maxime ab. Doloremque nobis fugiat doloribus ratione.
Enim tempore facere magni eius repellat. Et et sint dolores. Eum et quod et vitae similique est ipsam. Suscipit perspiciatis illum aliquid id eligendi est placeat delectus.
Laborum dolorum magnam vel quis dolorum ut voluptatum. Enim ut dolorum explicabo eos minima explicabo eum quos. Numquam quae esse praesentium. Nesciunt voluptas assumenda voluptatem voluptas assumenda. Sed et quae maxime accusantium dolor quisquam dolore. Veniam qui asperiores magnam. Velit quam id sint provident aut velit perferendis.
Modi et voluptates esse labore voluptate. Distinctio aliquid vel voluptas et autem sit voluptatibus. Quasi qui voluptatum quo mollitia. Et velit animi laudantium deleniti. Qui molestias temporibus ut et. Amet amet velit quasi voluptas odit tempora consequuntur.