Peter Schiff “Moneybomb” Set To Explode

by Paul Bass | February 19, 2009 3:07 PM | | Comments (52)

Web-savvy Libertarians in California have launched a nationwide movement to draft a New Haven-born celebrity pundit to take on Connecticut U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd. Their first big test comes Saturday.

The pundit is Peter Schiff. He has been a fixture bashing the federal bank bailout and stimulus efforts on national TV news (FOXNews, CNBC, CNN) panels because of his early predictions of the Wall Street meltdown. He published a prescient book in 2007 called Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse..

“The man who saw it all before everybody saw it,” as Fox anchor Liz Claman introduced him. (Click on the play arrow to watch.)

Schiff, who now runs a Darien stock brokerage firm, served as an economic adviser to Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, whose candidacy was elevated by a then-unprecedented grassroots Internet effort. Schiff is the son of Irwin Schiff, a now 81-year-old national cult figure (currently sitting in jail as part of a political protest) in the Libertarian anti-tax movement.

Those same Ron Paul forces are now gathering dollars and potential workers to propel Schiff into taking on Democrat Dodd. Dodd’s popularity ratings have tanked in the wake of a personal financial mini-scandal and his stewardship of the widely criticized 2008 bank-bailout bill.

Dodd’s term expires in 2010.

The campaign has an online “headquarters” and assorted rallying cries, including: “Stop the Bailouts.” “Stop the stimulus!” It has Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter presences, too — even though Schiff insisted in an interview that he has had nothing to do with the effort and would almost definitely not heed a call to actually run.

That’s right. Almost definitely.

“Want Peter to run? Pledge! Show him we’ve got his back,” proclaims the home page for an affiliated site coordinating a “Moneybomb” for this Saturday.

A “moneybomb” means supporters are hoping to raise an eye-popping pile of pledges in one day to show serious support for a Schiff candidacy — the way a one-day moneybomb propelled Ron Paul’s candidacy a year ago with a record haul.

Lamont Right

In some ways the effort mirrors the early drive to find a candidate to challenge Connecticut U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman in 2006, only this time from the right, not the left. In 2006, activists from across the country who supported challenger Ned Lamont poured money and cultivated volunteers through left-leaning national websites like Daily Kos and MoveOn.org. The campaign was national from the start, born at the netroots.

A Schiff campaign would be, too.

The nascent nerve center is in San Diego, where six techies are putting together the websites, videos and moneybombing drive, in which supporters across the country are urged to donate money on the same money.

The web-savvy team, including a “social networking strategist” and “web community developer,” is running the operation out of an independent PAC called the Political Exploration and Awareness Committee (PEAC).

As with the Lamont effort, they formed out of an existing movement, in this case Ron Paul’s quixotic 2008 presidential bid. As with the Lamont effort, they’re making contact with like-minded web activists across the country with the idea of spawning independent pro-Schiff efforts.

While the six PEAC people came out of the Paul campaign, Chad Peace, “director of operations,” emphasized that newer supporters aren’t all Paul devotees. Peace, who signs emails “In Liberty,” said he and his colleagues formed PEAC in December “not specifically for Peter Schiff. He’s just the first person to whom we directed our purpose. It was formed to do these sorts of exploratory campaigns for anyone we can build a following around who believes in constitutional government.”

“When [he and the core PEAC-niks] started following Paul, we started hearing about Schiff,” Peace said in a conversation Wednesday. He was an economic adviser. We started listening to him. He made so much sense.

“We want to coalesce this national following. Connecticut was a perfect choice. None of us are here to throw balls at Dodd, especially personal attacks. But he has been a guy who has promoted this massive government intervention. He’s on a Prescription for Change tour trying to reinvigorate the universal health debate. Without knocking his intentions, as we can see with the mortgage meltdown, it’s the Dodd-like policies of big government that are killing us.”

As an independent political action campaign, PEAC can raise as much money as it wants to support a pro-Schiff drive — as long as they never coordinate directly with Schiff or any official campaign committee that might develop. Peace said the goal this Saturday is to raise just $10,000 to $15,000. The money “should give us enough to finish up the development of some high-tech software that we’re going to incorporate into the website.”

Less Money, Not More

Judging from a conversation with Schiff Wednesday, it will take much more than that to convince him to step away from his Darien stock brokerage and hit the hustings as a Republican challenger to Chris Dodd.

He does warm up — instantly — to the subject of why he feels Chris Dodd should be handed a forced retirement from the U.S. Senate.

“Dodd has a role in creating a problem. He’s not playing a part in the solution,” said Schiff, who’s 45. “He was one of the biggest promoters of Fannie [Mae] and Freddie [Mac]. He’s one of the reasons efforts to rein them in was curtailed. The reason we’re in such a mess is the lax lending standards and moral standards that were a result of Fannie and Freddie. Dodd has his fingerprints all over this.”

More broadly, Schiff — unlike Dodd, President Obama, and the majority of U.S. senators and representatives — argued that the solution to the current recession is to avoid spending federal money, rather than bailing out lenders and businesses and homeowners and flooding the economy with loans and subsidies.

“We’re in trouble as a society. We spent too much money on consumer goods. We didn’t save enough,” he said, with a insistent delivery, honed on the TV pundit circuit, that turns bullet points into a fusillade. “We bought too much whether it was cars or telivision sets or iPods. We overpaid for a lot of stuff. We borrowed a lot of money…. We can’t pay the money back. That’s why all the financial institutions are in so much trouble — they loaned money to people who can’t pay it back.

“We need to acknowledge the mistakes we made in the past and right them. Let the credit crunch proceed. Put an end to consumer credit, which is what the market is trying to do. Americans need to stop buying things. We should all go on a couple of years’ buying hiatus. I can certainly go without any new clothes for a year or two or buying a new car or more stereo equipment. I’m sure most Americans can live pretty well for a while on the crap we own.

“We need to save our money. We need to earn a lot of money and not spend it. We need higher interest rates. We need lower asset prices. You’ve got a bunch of broke Americans living in expensive homes. The prices need to come down. Tuitions need to come down. The government is interfering with the market’s attempts to bring prices down. There is no solution that is not going to involve some pain. If people don’t go to the malls, people will lose their jobs. We have too many malls. We have too many people working on Wall Street. We don’t need to build new houses for a new decade.”

Schiff also faulted Dodd for his leading role in crafting the first stage of the federal TARP bank bailout, which gave then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson the authority to hand out billions of dollars without any public oversight over how the money was spent.

Pro-Stimulus

At this point the nascent Schiff pre-bubble hasn’t scared Dodd into moving right.

Asked for a response, Dodd spokesman Bryan DeAngelis lumped Schiff’s prescriptions into the “GOP failure” bin.

“As recent history has shown us, the Republican ‘stand by and do nothing’ approach
has failed our nation,” he wrote in an email message. “Senator Dodd continues to work every day for the people of Connecticut to develop solutions to the economic crisis — including his efforts to combat foreclosures, create sustainable American jobs, modernize our financial regulatory system, and put an end to the failed Republican policies that got us into this mess.”

Click on the play arrow to watch Dodd address the Freddie/Fannie issue.

Meanwhile, Peter Schiff is responding the netroots activity in his name with less than full encouragement.

“I’m not running for anything. They’re hoping if they can raise a lot of money and start an organization, they can convince me and draft me into a senate campaign. I think it is a longshot,” he said. “Is it impossible? Nothing is impossible. Is there is a slim chance? The odds are I’m not going to do it. It’s just not something I think is the best use of my time. Even if I could become a senator, I don’t know what the hell I could do! I would be one guy out of a hundred.”

If somehow he did run and then get elected, Schiff said he was certain he could never get re-elected. He would work hard not to bring home the bacon, or the pork, to people in Connecticut.

“I’d be voting against them all! I’d be trying to protect Connecticut residents from the government. I won’t be [advocating] pet projects.”







Share this story

Share |

Comments

Posted by: robn | February 19, 2009 3:40 PM

Dems defending Fannie and Freddie 18 mponths ago did not cause this total global collapse. For 12 years prior to the Democratic Congress, the Republican dominated legisltaure did everything they could to gut regulatory agencies and oversight. They went into hyperdrive when Bush came into office, making a mockery of FEMA, the SEC, the FDA...you name it.

Posted by: ephil | February 19, 2009 3:41 PM

I am writing yet again to complain about sloppy journalism. When a journalist screws up basic facts, how can one expect veracity in the rest of their writing? "Schiff, who now runs a Darien stock brokerage firm, served as an economic adviser to Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, whose candidacy was elevated by a then-unprecedented grassroots Internet effort." Ron Paul was a Republican presidential candidate with libertarian---small 'l' beliefs. Bob Barr was the Libertarian---capital 'L' Party candidate.

Posted by: Peter Schiff Fan | February 19, 2009 3:42 PM

I really hope we can show enough support to get Peter to run for Senate... I hate Chris Dodd check out the Campaign Site:

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/02/netroots_promot.php

Posted by: Cheri | February 19, 2009 3:54 PM

Brilliant. I totally agree with Mr. Schiff. Americans have been greedy, wasteful, and profligate with their money. Unfortunately, those taxpayers who were/are financially responsible will have to take care of them - so they can go on living in a fantasy world. Thanks, Federal Guv!

Posted by: Tyler | February 19, 2009 3:54 PM

I checked out the Schiff2010 website and it was really well done. It would be great to have someone on the Senate with some fiscal common sense. Someone who believes in sound money and less government spending. Go Peter.

Posted by: True New Havener | February 19, 2009 4:21 PM

I would not be surprised if Chris Dodd himself is funding the effort to draft this guy.

Ron Paul highest level of polling support among REPUBLICANS nationally:

5%

Ron Paul percent of vote in CT REPUBLICAN primary:

4%

Posted by: Bill | February 19, 2009 4:22 PM

Robn, it wasn't 18 months ago, the hearings to reform fannie mae and freddie mac were in 2004. Bush and the republicans were for it and the democrats were against it. And yes it was the housing market collapse that precipitated this recession. It has nothing to do with FEMA or the FDA. Nice try to put up a smoke screen.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | February 19, 2009 4:35 PM

ROBN

"Dems defending Fannie and Freddie 18 mponths ago did not cause this total global collapse."

Yeah. Right. Of course not.

Posted by: Cheri | February 19, 2009 4:47 PM

It seems pretty clear from everything I've read that both the dems and gop leaders in congress had a lot to gain for "turning the other cheek" these past many years about oversight, regulation, deregulation, etc. It is frustrating to see this mess merely turned into a political debate. Greedy is colorblind, meaning not Red or Blue. Americans are getting bailed out for their own complicity, ignorance and irresponsibility in that mess. Many guilty parties here, not just political ones.

Posted by: Wrong and Wrong | February 19, 2009 4:54 PM

Shame on the Independent for letting Mr. Schiff spout nonsense without a fact check. Some obvious examples:

- Fannie and Freddie did not cause the mortgage collapse. Libertarian approaches to banking and securities regulation did. Did Freddie and Fannie (or individual home buyers) create credit default swaps?
- Schiff is not the only person who predicted a collapse, though he may be the only one on Fixed News.
- Paul Krugman (he of the Nobel Prize in economics) predicted the collapse; George Soros has been saying there was a massive bubble for a long time. Hard to believe that neither Schiff not Bass knows who these guys are. And they are just two of the many to the left of Schiff who warned of collapse.

It's not enough to let Dodd respond. The snake oil prescriptions should be evaluated even if Bass thinks Dodd deserves an opponent. What Schiff is saying is such nonsense wrapped in nice populist language that it is an important part of the story and should be addressed as such.

The NHI too frequently puts up right wing pundits who spout off in faux populist ways and allows that to be the last word. Fox pundits love to act like they are for the working man, yet re-reading Schiff's words a couple of times makes clear that his approach would devastate working families.

His idea of shared pain is where you lose your job and he keeps making big money but does not buy a new car for a year or two. That's not a national economic strategy.

While some of his prescriptions will be great once the economic catastrophe has passed, the real way to get to them is to significantly increase regulation of the banking, mortgage and security industries.

Does he support that? If so -- good.

Oh yeah, and while he thinks Americans all just need to pass up new ipods, what about those Americans who used that debt to pay for medical care because we lack affordable health care for all? What about those Americans who never spent like crazy and just lost their job -- should we allow them to become homeless? Is that good for them or the economy?

The truth is that shock therapy strategies like those Schiff suggests have generally failed when forced on countries by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. They have led to massive poverty, political instability, and even greater concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few. Over the last decade, these approaches have largely lost favor -- just not among Faux News pundits.

Posted by: Zephram | February 19, 2009 5:57 PM

Amazing coverage, NHI.

I hope he runs, but if not, the PEAC can still go on to do a lot of good.

Posted by: DingDong | February 19, 2009 8:32 PM

Can't we have a primary challenge? Dodd should go, but we should have a Democrat replace him.

Posted by: Jeremy D. Young | February 19, 2009 8:54 PM

@Wrong and Wrong:

- Fannie and Freddie did not cause the mortgage collapse. Libertarian approaches to banking and securities regulation did. Did Freddie and Fannie (or individual home buyers) create credit default swaps?

No, Fannie and Freddie did not create credit default swaps specifically. The federal government did by guaranteeing loans. It created the impetus to grant loans to people that were not credit-worthy. Once people realized that they had hundreds of loans that were un-likely to be paid back (or at least there was a risk), they sought to sell off those loans for real money. There was only a market for those because of Fannie and Freddie. Once large companies started collecting all these risky mortgages, they sought ways to mitigate that risk. The Bailout solidified this horrendous concept of CDS's. By purchasing these toxic assets and preventing the bankruptcy of all that participated in these horrible ponzi schemes, they've perpetuated the very problem. These companies should be free to create these monstrosities, but they should also be free to fail when they fall down like a house of cards.

The Government cannot manage the financial markets, it can only give the illusion of managing them. It doesn't create real safety, only the illusion, causing people to think that their investments in the Stock Market or other areas are guaranteed to be excellent and wise.

Over the last decade, these approaches have largely lost favor -- just not among Faux News pundits.

There's nothing positive about the last decade to hold up as a standard for financial well being. Not even the last 20 years. The last 20 years have been a massive shifting economic bubble, one fails and the Federal Reserve rushes to pump it back up in another area. You should actually read and listen to what Schiff says instead of claiming this news source is faulty. None of the fiscal policies of Peter Schiff were ever even brought up for a vote during this time, much less passed.

Furthermore, I'm not sure where you got the impression, but Schiff would only be a Republican because the political system in this country is completely rigged so that only Democrats and Republicans can participate in the process. The 6 years of Republicans controlling the House, Senate, and White House have never been praised by Peter Schiff. There are very few people in Washington D.C. that are fiscally responsible and that I would trust to lead us out of this mess. Ron Paul is one, and if Peter Schiff were in DC, he would make two.

Posted by: TJ | February 19, 2009 9:03 PM

WRONG AND WRONG obviously isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

"Libertarian approaches to banking and securities regulation did."

- Uhh.. no, it didn't. The central bank lowering interests rates below what a free market would set them at is the root cause of all this. And both dems and republicans are to blame for using this easy money to their personal advantage.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | February 19, 2009 9:04 PM

DINGDONG--

You forget. Dodd owns that Senate seat.

Me, I want to see the polling. My guess is that a Dodd vs. Simmons, (the probable GOP candidate), poll would show them both in the 40's, with Dodd enjoying a slight lead.

Meaning we could actually lose this Senate seat!

If it is that close, my belief is that instead of spending time and $$$ to re-elect Dodd in 2010, the Dem Party should sit down and give serious thought to "encouraging" Dodd to retire.

Blumenthal vs. Simmons would not be close. DeLauro vs. Simmons would be a safe 10% victory. Larson vs. Simmons, ditto. Or even Bysiewicz or bring back Ned Lamont.

The problem is that Dodd is too cozy with the banks he is supposed to regulate, and we all know it. Perhaps he takes them on in the coming year, (he's been talking tough lately), but the bind Dodd's in is that he remains reliant on them for his campaign cash.

Anyway, the Dem Party should be about more than one person, and if Dodd is at risk of losing, I'm with you. Let's draft somebody else.

Posted by: 4558883 | February 19, 2009 9:04 PM

Today most libertarians are merely Republican businessmen who are drawn to the mainstream fringe simply for the fact that they were squares in high school. Plus such thinkers are drawn to the free-markets-equal-liberty concept as it is so elegantly simplistic--and thus easy to understand. Most people recognized the housing market bubble years ago. That the likes of Schiff are now considered seers is as annoying as those who recently supported Ron Paulsy.

Posted by: Wrong and Wrong | February 20, 2009 12:49 AM

Oh goody, now we have been joined by the out of state Ron Paul crowd -- welcome Mssrs. TJ & Young.

Don't lie about credit default swaps. They ceased to be used as insurance and became a ridiculous investment which far exceeded the value of the underlying assets. That has nothing to do with home buyers and everything to do with an unregulated market. Either you don't like to tell the truth or you don't know what you are talking about -- pick one.

Fannie and Freddie did not press for all sorts of new loan products. Be honest about what they did and do. The majority of Fannie and Freddie's loans were conforming, and thus by definition not junk. Unfortunately the industry effectively pressured them and Congress to begin purchasing some of the crappy mortgages. But Fannie and Freddie did not issue those mortgages because they don't issue mortgages. They bought the mortgages after lightly regulated mortgage companies issued them with crappy terms.

This did not happen because of a desire to help low wage people or people who could not afford mortgages. This happened because Countrywide and other companies spent huge money to influence decision-makers. But even with this, the large majority of the predatory and other crappy mortgages were never bought by either Freddie or Fannie. So blaming either for the collapse we face is silliness from folks who either are inexperienced, ignorant of the facts or get their talking points from the Republican party.

And as to the Libertarian free market setting of interest rates, what does that even mean? Name a single modern economy that has an unregulated banking system without a monetary policy? If you are arguing the Fed kept the rates too low for too long, that's an interesting argument. But there is no magic free market setting of interest rates. You are arguing that there was a need to take some of the steam out of the economy, but to do that is to use the same Fed tools but in the other direction -- no more the magic market than the alternative. Just because its your opinion of when to flip the switch does not make it "the free market."

Of course if you actually want to return to the gold standard then this several paragraph education is lost on you.

And as to Mr. Schiff only being able to run as a Republican because the process is so "rigged" in America to only benefit the two parties. Yeah -- Mr. Out-of-Stater, thanks for your wisdom. There's no way someone not affiliated with either party could ever win an election in Connecticut -- nope never gonna happen here.

But if Mr. Schiff did decide to be the "first" person to run as a 3rd party candidate in Connecticut, he could call his party the Weicker-Leiberman-Sheff(not Schiff)-Cotto-Working Families Party. It would be so wonderful to have someone as wise as you to help guide us through the discovery of the blazingly new concept of a 3rd party.

Posted by: Walt | February 20, 2009 8:47 AM

Dodd is far from a favorite of mine, but the Schiffs and Ron Paul are nuts.

Hate the thought of voting Dodd in again, but may have to.

Posted by: bjslay | February 20, 2009 10:56 AM

anyone play sim city back in the day? remember when your economy was failing and you could issue bonds and get money to keep 'growing' and 'expanding'? then once that money ran out you went and sold some more bonds? then when that money disappeared...

Posted by: Curt | February 20, 2009 11:14 AM

Senetor Dodd is perhaps the one person that is most responsible for the entire recession, and he is still at it, creating an even worse recession by printing money and putting the dollar are greater risk of collapse.

Peter and Ron have been right all along, yet discarded by the media that favors the other party. The democrats have adopted the values of the socialism party - they are nuts.

Posted by: Dilip | February 20, 2009 12:08 PM

It will be a good idea for Schiff to run for Senate. I might not agree with him on everything that he says but at least here's a guy who knows where he stands and explains it clearly.

Posted by: YerMawm | February 20, 2009 12:18 PM

Unregulated? Who's not dealing in facts?

What were SoX, CRA, GLBA (more reg, not full repeal). Financials are the most regulated industry in the world.

Additionally, as long as the Federal Reserve (which is a cartel, exactly like opec is a cartel in oil) exists with a monopoly on counterfeiting, there is regulation. So that is since 1913. Fixing the cost of money has a HUGE impact on the rest of the economy.

Only fools believe the govt can fix their problems, and that more regulation is the answer. There is always a loophole to the regulations. Only socialists believe more socialism is the answer to problems caused by socialism.

Laws only keep the honest people honest. It's up to you an me to fix our own problems

Posted by: Dr Evil | February 20, 2009 12:53 PM

Until we resotre contstituitonal order (a lawful society) with no illegal Fed, no illegal income tax, repeal of the unratified 14th amanedment making all of us US citizens (legal term for federal citizen slaves) and a fed gov put back in it's lawful place we will be forced to suffer under the elite bankers who own our country....

Posted by: Scott | February 20, 2009 12:57 PM

Democrats are really good at blaming Republicans for their problems. "It is all Bush's fault!" "Republicans caused all the de-regulation!".

Upper-middle class priveleged trash talk it is. Look in the mirror! Learn some history, learn some economics.

You are all whiners looking for your mothers.

Posted by: robn | February 20, 2009 1:00 PM

Follow the smell of greed far past Freddie and Fannie and you'll find a lot of our problems attriccutable to the Republican party and in particular, Republican Sen Phil Gramm. In 1999 he co-sponsored a bill which tore down depression era firewalls between commercial banks,investment banks, insurance and securities. In 2000, while the rest of the country was worried about vote counting in Florida, PG snuck through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which allowed companies like Enron (who later gave his wife a job) to avoid scrutiny and allowed a cool new thing called a Credit Default Swap, creating what becaem a $62 Trillion unregulated market that became the burial ground for the world economy.Freddie and Fannie are branches of deeply rooted tree that was planted by Republicans.

Posted by: Tom | February 20, 2009 1:03 PM

Can Peter still run his company if he is elected senator? What are the rules with this?

I would bet that his company is going throw extreme growth right now given all the media attention he's getting.

If he can't continue to lead his company, I highly doubt he will want to be a senator.

Posted by: Scott | February 20, 2009 1:04 PM

And how did the US government become the largest landlord in the country?

Posted by: Scott | February 20, 2009 1:15 PM

Let's remind anybody backing the current federal reserve that they are really saying that they are PRO-WAR.

The federal reserve has allowed the country to balloon it's money supply and abuse it's reserve currency status to fund every war since Vietnamn. Even their beloved totalitarin inspired leader, Barack Obama, has chosen Afghanistan as his war.

Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, are the only economists in this country I have found that have called for decrease spending, draw-back troops from the 700+ military bases, and stop spending like lunatics and dropping bombs on kids.

You call us free-marketeers, I call you war-porn lovers...

Posted by: mike | February 20, 2009 1:26 PM

From all the money i've made in the last few months when i bought gold at 800 because he said so I think i almost owe it to him to give him some kind of donation.

Posted by: Avaspell | February 20, 2009 1:42 PM

And as to the Libertarian free market setting of interest rates, what does that even mean? Name a single modern economy that has an unregulated banking system without a monetary policy? If you are arguing the Fed kept the rates too low for too long, that's an interesting argument. But there is no magic free market setting of interest rates. You are arguing that there was a need to take some of the steam out of the economy, but to do that is to use the same Fed tools but in the other direction -- no more the magic market than the alternative. Just because its your opinion of when to flip the switch does not make it "the free market."

First, the free market setting interest means allowing interest to float based on supply and demand. If lenders are risk-averse, they will want to charge more to lend to cover said risk. (This goes not only for banks, but even more so for the people that supply the savings to the bank: depositors). If lenders wish to undertake more risk, they lend at lower rates. Period.

And to suggest that just because no current modern economy has an unregulated system (by this I assume you mean the existence of a central bank) without a monetary policy goes to show that you are refusing to use your own brain. Using that exact same logic, a constitutional republican government would have never been under consideration in the late 18th century, because what modern government had a constitutional republican basis? Just because something hasn't yet been fully tried does NOT mean it won't work. And there is ample evidence, based on fundamental principles, that a free-market banking system with sound money behind would produce greater economic opportunities and growth than the current system.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | February 20, 2009 2:24 PM

Peter Schiff -- stay away from a Congressional seat and use the bully pulpit to bang away at the crumbling edifice of federal government -- you will be more effective and you won't be coopted.

Posted by: Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg | February 20, 2009 2:51 PM

Wrong & Wrong is a prototypical American dupe.

'Libertarian' fiscal policy got us into this mess? Good grief.

For 40 years the Fed has done nothing BUT interfere with free markets, creating bubble after bubble, and then rushing in after they pop to once again flood the economy with more billions of worthless paper.

Wrong & Wrong is'wrong, alright (upstairs, that is).

Posted by: Wrong and wrong | February 20, 2009 3:41 PM

Mission Accomplished!!!

And now the loony toons have come out. Good to see the real Paul/Schiff supporters and their wacky ideas fully on display. I knew if I threw some facts at them they would come out with their wing-nuttery and like clockwork -- here they are.

Come on guys you still have to give us some more of the Ron Paul/Schiff craziness.

Maybe you'd like to explain how Ron Paul did not actually know what was in the self-published Ron Paul report -- so of course all of the racial superiority in that wacko publication should be ignored. (Waiting to heat dishes crashing as you run to your keyboards on that one.)

How about some more on how the Community Reinvestment Act caused our current recession. There's a great chance to show you are truly off your rockers. Just ignore that:

- CRA has been the law since 1977, so not sure how 31 years later it suddenly became a problem.
- CRA does not apply to mortgage companies.
- CRA did not apply to most of the crappy mortgages that were issued.
- CRA was not aggressively enforced during the Bush administration.

But I know what you mean when you say "CRA." You mean banks gave mortgages to people of color and lower income people. So go ahead and say it -- then you could actually write for the old Ron Paul report. You'd be wrong but at least we'd know who you are.

In reality, the banks did not go out and make some massive new number of loans to people of color -- quite the opposite. And with Bush basically not enforcing fair lending laws, the loan terms for people of color were often awful (any number of studies show lending disparities based on race with similar income and credit scores).

So even in the area you wackos like to point to, the CRA bogeyman, what was needed was enforcement of existing fair lending regulations, not more deregulation.

Face it -- Bush was Mr. deregulation. It failed. Now when your strategies failed miserably you want to blame it on small tangential programs and laws. When someone is dying of lung cancer, you basically are saying hey I think they are sick because they are left-handed. It's nuts.

To the extent that Mr. Schiff is of your ilk, we should expect his "campaign" to go down in flames, just like Ron Paul's.

Posted by: Kevin | February 20, 2009 3:58 PM

This man is a charlatan who has ALWAYS been bearish:

http://www.erictyson.com/articles/20090213

Posted by: Steve | February 20, 2009 4:04 PM

Grest man, I pray he runs for congress, one more crook unseated and an honest person taking his place. Dodd was told not to vote for the bailout and he did anyway, you idiots in Connecticut still put him back in office, what a joke. You are supposed to vote for the other guy when your leader has gone rouge.

Posted by: Another Fraud | February 20, 2009 5:41 PM

Here's what the Wall Street Journal has to say about Mr. Schiff:

"Peter Schiff predicted a collapse of the U.S. financial system. The bust-up he didn't foresee was the one that made mincemeat of investors who took his advice in 2008.

Mr. Schiff's Darien, Conn., broker-dealer firm, Euro Pacific Capital Inc., advised its clients to bet that the dollar would weaken significantly and that foreign stocks would outpace their U.S. peers. Instead, the dollar advanced against most currencies, magnifying the losses from foreign stocks Mr. Schiff steered his investors into."

Posted by: Avaspell | February 20, 2009 6:18 PM

WRONG AND WRONG:

I'm sorry, I thought we were having a debate as individuals. If you wan to go to Ron Paul and tell him he's a racist and published that information, go ahead. I am not Ron Paul and I have my own thoughts and viewpoints. Of course it seems that you can't have a real discussion without immediately stereotyping the participants.

Anyway, I love how when someone makes the argument of "here's why the markets are not 'deregulated'", you translate that into "these regulations caused the recession". Anyone versed in the Austrian school of economics is well aware that these regulations don't cause unsustainable booms: Loose monetary policy does. Regulatory vehicles such as the CRA are possible conduits through which the boom manifests. However, the nature of the boom is irrelevant: the fact there was a boom means that a bust is inevitable. Each time the Fed sees the bust, they take some new measure to "help" alleviate the pressure. However, before you can solve a problem, you have to know it's nature. And the nature of this boom, Just like every other boom since the Fed was conceived, can be directly tied back to loose monetary policy. Read Mises and F.A. Hayek, both who wrote extensively on this very subject. In fact, Hayek won a Nobel Prize for his work in the study of this business cycle and its ultimate cause.

If you want to trust the same people who said year after year that the economy is great and there is no bust coming, our policies have eliminated the bust (which has been said by mainstream economists during every boom we've had), then go for it, spend your way into heaven.

However, if you think that maybe it's better to hire people who have consistently predicted every bust in the last century, then people like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul are more than qualified for the tasks. If you hate Ron because he's "racist", fine, hire Peter. If you hate Peter because.... (will wait for reason for hatred), hire another from the Austrian school of economics. If you think they're all quacks, I hope you like your bottle of snake oil and magic unicorns, because that's really only what most of the others have to offer you.

Posted by: Derek | February 20, 2009 6:21 PM

His reasoning for why the crash was going to happen before it happened, seemed to be pretty common sense to me. But if we all stop buying stuff, then don't we pretty much all lose jobs? Buy what you can afford.. but he is a little over emphatic about buying NOTHING. if you have millions, you should buy stuff.. if you can't pay, then don't.. but Peter, man.. don't tell EVERYONE not to buy ANYTHING!

Posted by: Jim | February 21, 2009 3:40 AM

"Peter Schiff, change you actually would believe in"

An independent voice of reason to the Senate would be a breath of fresh air.

A voice for small government, low taxes, personal responsibility, you know, the pillars that the nation was founded upon, that's all.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | February 21, 2009 8:52 AM

WRONG and WRONG

"So even in the area you wackos like to point to, the CRA bogeyman, what was needed was enforcement of existing fair lending regulations, not more deregulation."

You are truly showing your ignorance and partisanship when dismissing the CRA debacle. Anytime Bush regulators brought up the abuses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they were labeled as racists by Boxer, Waters et al, and then threatened with investigations to shut them up. This even played out locally when King John was shooting his mouth off in front of banks like New Alliance for not making risky loans to people of color, and threatening them with sanctions. If you forgot, check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM&feature=PlayList&p=13E7A5BDDA0CA195&playnext=1&index=21

Yeah, Eric Holder, we are a nation of racial cowards!

Posted by: robn | February 21, 2009 11:08 AM

FUWL,

W&W is correct abbout CRA; you are incorrect.

"the foreclosure rates on subprime, adjustable-rate and other exotic mortgage loans have run four to five times higher than the foreclosure rates on conventional CRA mortgages. Testifying before the House Financial Services Committee in February, University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr reported that only about 20 percent of subprime mortgages were issued by banks regulated by the CRA. The other 80 percent of predatory and high-interest subprime loans were offered by financial institutions not covered by the CRA and not subject to routine examination or supervision. "The worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight,"
Peter Dreier & John Atlas
November 10, 2008 edition of The Nation.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081110/dreier_atlas

Posted by: Matt | February 21, 2009 7:38 PM

All die hard democrats and republicans need to youtube the video "Freedom to Fascism." Don't even bother trying to talk down to any Ron Paul supporter without watching it. Watch ALL of it and you may yet learn something.

For all the Ron Paul people, understand that there are some people in the country who are arrogant and ignorant. It's just the way it is. Even during the Revolutionary War there were Torys. Also, buy as much silver bullion as possible. Especially us Ron Paul people who don't have the money for buying a lot of gold bullion.
Read the book "Guide to Investing in Gold and Silver." You'll be glad you did.

apmex.com is a great dealer.

Again, youtube "Freedom to Fascism" and then form an opinion.

"Unite or Die. Liberty or Death."

Posted by: Anthony Coralluzzo | February 21, 2009 10:44 PM

For god's sake, RUN PETER, RUN!!!!!!

Posted by: elonna chukwuma | February 21, 2009 11:10 PM

please try try to undersand my feeling i need nature money not condution money.i need happy money to help my familly and help people need help

Posted by: Jim | February 22, 2009 2:45 AM

Peter Schiff is someone who actually speaks the truth and tells it like it is. We need a senator who is willing to deliver the tough medicine and not pretend we can get ahead on borrowed money. The guy is a wiz and knows what he's talking about. Afterall, he saw this whole mess coming. I would totally vote for this guy.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | February 22, 2009 7:07 AM

ROBN

"The Nation" is hardly an objective source of information to explain the fiscal mess that your people have put us in. They are as kook fringe to the left as "The Aryan Nation" is to the right. This article you reference is trying to justify a political organization like ACORN which is currently under investigation for widespreasd voter fraud in 14 states.

Let's deal with mainstream thought and be intellectually honest here.

Posted by: robn | February 22, 2009 10:03 AM

FUWL,
So I guess that Paul Newman, one of The Nations most generous benefactors, is comparable to a neo-Nazi. Gimme a break.
As far as the information in the article, facts are facts; show me something that disproves it.

Posted by: James | February 22, 2009 5:03 PM

Schiff sounds good but his EP fund has done terribly so my question, if he really knows what he's doing, why can't he translate it into effective real-world decisions?
He would be terrible for CT.

Posted by: mike | February 24, 2009 1:11 PM

I have over 15 years experience in the mortgage
business. The trouble with Fannie and Freddie
came the day when the PITI ent,interest,taxes,and insurance which was limited to 28 per cent of
your gross income and an allowance of 36 percent
with debt was done away with and these two entities where allowed to buy up mortgages which
did not meet the traditional criteria is the D-day for the current mortgage fiasco.
P.S. Never buy a home without getting an independent apparaisal. Lenders and realtors blackmail appraisers to bring in houses with they over price to get the listing

Posted by: Streever | February 24, 2009 3:29 PM

"served as an economic adviser to Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul"

Wasn't Ron Paul was running for the Republican Presidential Nomination? I was caught up in Obama enthusiasm & didn't pay any attention to Paul's campaign, but I am fairly certain he ran as a republican for the republican party, albeit with libertarian ideals.... He is currently a Republican in Congress so I don't think he could run as a Libertarian for President?

Posted by: James | February 25, 2009 8:09 PM

Schiff has good ideas and speaks frankly about the current crisis unlike so many of our current political leaders including Dodd. My only concern is that the people of CT can't bear to hear the truth. It is such a liberal state now, and everyone is looking for a bail out to relive the days of the "bubble". The current generation doesn't want to hear the words "sacrifice", "save", and "live within your means" even though that is the tough medicine the doctor has ordered. The fallacy that government will save us and some one else will pay the bill will lead to only worse problems as Schiff proclaimed. I'm with you Peter, I'm just afraid there are too many free loaders in CT these days and your message will fall on deaf ears.

Posted by: reaper | March 6, 2009 5:25 PM

It makes no sense to push for Kudlow. Peter Schiff has a much stronger foundation in economics than Kudlow and he is not nearly as conniving and sketchy. If you want to get someone in the Senate with some fiscal knowledge check out Peter Schiff at www.schiff2010.com.

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links


Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35