[Politics] Peter Schiff - Page 6

On January 10 2010 07:37 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Thanks, Econ 101. When you get to Econ 401, maybe you can come back and have this conversation over again.

On January 10 2010 07:56 SnK-Arcbound wrote:


Cool, no argument, just an insult. Thanks for showing that I'm right.

On January 10 2010 06:20 7Strife wrote:

I agree with you, there needs to be innovation in currency. It is illegal in the US and most of the world to use different types of currency. There should be no restriction on the government deciding what has value and what doesn't. We need to rethink the idea of currency for the digital age, where you can have competing trusted organizations that can virtually represent rarity. We once used gold, silver, or sea shells because they were finite scalable substances in demand that we gave value, but data in the form of base ten digits on protected servers could do the same thing. PayPal already does this but that is further backed by the dollar, or whatever it might be in that country. There has to be a lot of competition within the market and proper safeguards (that we all can understand) enacted but it will work. Then you won't have governments or organizations flooding and inflating their currencies out of greed.

On January 10 2010 07:58 StorkHwaiting wrote:
You can't even differentiate between liquidity of an asset and liquidity of the financial market lol.

Liquidity isn't how accessible cash is in a market, read it's definition. Liquidity: the ability or ease with which assets can be converted into cash. There is no other definition of liquidity, unless you're reading someone making it up (read: You).

On January 10 2010 07:56 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Cool, no argument, just an insult. Thanks for showing that I'm right.

On January 10 2010 10:24 d_so wrote:
this guy keeps claiming hyperinflation will take over and send us into an apocalypse... but it's just not going to happen. hyperinflation = an inflation rate over at least 50 percent.

On January 10 2010 10:24 d_so wrote:
this guy keeps claiming hyperinflation will take over and send us into an apocalypse... but it's just not going to happen. hyperinflation = an inflation rate over at least 50 percent.

On January 10 2010 09:12 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Jesus Christ.

How much simpler can I make this for you?

Liquidity = ease with which assets can be converted into cash.

If there's NO cash in the market, how liquid does an asset become?

You're sitting here looking at the asset end and totally failing to understand the concept that you could lower the price of a house to $1 and you still won't sell it when nobody has $1 to spend. There are two sides to liquidity. BUYERS and SELLERS.

Therefore, when someone talks about market liquidity, they're talking about how many buyers/sellers are available in the market. When nobody has money, guess how many buyers there are in the market?

You, unfortunately, can't seem to grasp this extremely simple concept. And somehow, you think the entire financial industry, which quite often refers to market liquidity, must be wrong as well. Since, apparently, you can quote definitions of liquidity.

College's aren't businesses

On January 10 2010 10:56 SnK-Arcbound wrote:

Hyperinflation is 10% edit: a year.



How many people own dogs if no dogs exist. None, wow amazing! That's a nice strawman you built there.

Money always exists in a market. The only thing you are creating by printing money is inflation. There are always buyers, and there are always sellers. We are at a fake, impossible, nonexistant high for houses. If you try and slow down the fall, you are merely keeping houses up with another bubble. Sure, print money if you want another bubble, what a brilliant idea, put easy money into the market to solve the problem that easy money created.

You aren't solving the problem, you are feeding it. Inflation as a solution for a recession, great idea. Inflation as the solution for debt, great idea. You mix your own personal feelings in with minimal historical evidence to try and reach your predetermined conclusion that you solve the problem the same way you created it.

You think that the bailouts were good. Peter Schiff doesn't. Peter Schiff has been right for the past 20 years. Now should we believe you mister economy student, or someone who has accurately predicted the economy for 20 years?

Here's the quote of the day from StorkHwaiting:

On January 10 2010 15:07 monolith94 wrote:
When I went to get my M.Ed. I took a course in adult education, which was basically best practices for teaching people high-school age and up. It turned out that half of the class was about actual teaching practices, and the other half was about trends in colleges and universities business plans, and the pressures that colleges and universities business models are increasingly placing on professors.

Sorry, but colleges/universities ARE businesses. They fit a unique role within our society and so disguise themselves as irreplaceable social institutions, but they shouldn't be exalted beyond what they actually are.

On January 10 2010 15:24 StorkHwaiting wrote:


OK, I'll state that I was wrong and should have worded what I meant differently. What I should say is that I don't think universities should be run as businesses because they fail as such. Instead, I think universities should be FURTHER subsidized so that the focus can be on education/research and not money-making.

Universities are one of the biggest drivers of research in the United States. They're also one of the most important social institutions for training and directing our labor force. To NOT provide subsidization and government funding to such an important facet of our society would be a net loss for our country in my opinion.

Now, I'm nowhere near as adamant on this subject as I am on some of the other economic issues brought up in this thread. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know anywhere near enough about the education system to comment in any meaningful way. So I probably shouldn't have started that debate and I apologize for saying dumb things.

On January 11 2010 11:13 ArmChairCritic wrote:

The agricultural sector is the biggest supplier of food in the United States. To NOT provide subsidization and goverment funding to such an important facet of our society would be a net loss for out country.
The supermarkets is the biggest business model that sells food in the United States. It is vital to provide food for people. To NOT provide subsidization and goverment funding to such an important facet of our society would be a net loss for out country.
The construction sector is the biggest supplier of houses. To NOT provide subsidization and goverment funding to such an important facet of our society would be a net loss for out country.
Blablabla into ad nauseum...
The same argument could be used for essentially everything sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo glhf

On January 11 2010 11:21 StorkHwaiting wrote:


Good points. But was the sooooooo really necessary?

On January 11 2010 11:13 ArmChairCritic wrote:

The agricultural sector is the biggest supplier of food in the United States. To NOT provide subsidization and goverment funding to such an important facet of our society would be a net loss for out country.
The supermarkets is the biggest business model that sells food in the United States. It is vital to provide food for people. To NOT provide subsidization and goverment funding to such an important facet of our society would be a net loss for out country.
The construction sector is the biggest supplier of houses. To NOT provide subsidization and goverment funding to such an important facet of our society would be a net loss for out country.
Blablabla into ad nauseum...
The same argument could be used for essentially everything sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo glhf