Thursday, March 5, 2009

Peter Schiff on The Kudlow Report

March 5, 2009

investments, stock, bonds, gold, silver, commodities, jim rogers, marc faber, peter schiff, ron paul, banking crisis, economic meltdown


  1. Good interview and good website, thanks admin!

  2. So tired of hearing about Kudlow's 'Mustard Seeds.' heheh.

  3. Yeah that guy is always trying to hype the stock market. I love it when he says that he thinks big goverment is the problem. I remember 1 year ago when he was talking everything right that the government was doing and was all the time saying that interest rates should be lower. That guy has no real believes, he just follows the hype.

  4. Kudlow is one of the few voices of sanity on TV. But Peter Schiff has it exactly right. What should the government do? This government should do nothing, because it is clueless. A rationale government would put us on a gold standard or otherwise take the power to debase the currency out of the hands of the Fed.

    This bubble was 100% Fed-created (government-created). The bubble was aggravated and ultimately burst by the Community Reinvestment Act thugs on the left side of the aisle coercing banks to lend to deadbeats and losers (the natural constituency of the Democrat party).

    Government is the problem.

    If this hurts, lefties, sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts.

  5. Going back to gold standard is suicide because of the complexity of the financial system. This can cause massive deleveraging and an increase in asymmetric information. Imagine that derivatives are in trillions (Derivatives backed by underlying assets that is backed by dollars that is backed by gold.

    US gold reserves are worth US$250 Billion, having a debt of US$10 Trillion++. If gold standard is adopted, massive deleveraging will occur. Put it in a T account and you get insolvency.

    The reason why Gold Standard was dropped was because it was rigid back then in 1930s. So current adoption will kill both good & bad financial innovations.

  6. The Gold Standard was completely dropped in 1971, not in the 1930's. What kept the government in check in the 1930's and kept the govt. from inflating the money supply as much as they wanted to was the Gold Standard. If that is "too rigid" I am for it. It is RIDGID on the government. I like that. When they don't get their way, they always say things are "too ridgid." "We promise if you let us print as much money as we want, we won't put the country in jeopardy."
    Yea right, like now for instance?

    I believe that if we could ever get spending under control, the Gold Standard would be a good way to keep a check on government spending and inflating our money supply. A nation's currency must be backed by more than a government promise or fiat. The way it is now with our fiat currency the govt. and the FED are printing the country into oblivion.

  7. I also don't think the gold standard would be suicide. Now we would obviously have to have less gold to equal more dollars and to cut spending, but I don't see any other option. The transition may be tough but if we don't go back to sound money eventually our currency will be destroyed. You can't keep borrowing and printing, eventually your going to have to pay it back either thru much higher taxes or high inflation and the only way to stop governments from growing is to have some standard to regulate them by. Looking at what we're going through today I think it's safe to say that we are better off with the gold standard in the long run.