Hey libs, let Peter Schiff educate you on 9-9-9 and OWS

[Liberty]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iJvtQpyx1A]Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, Occupy Wall Street - YouTube[/ame]

 

[8537]

He was wrong about hyperinflation.

He was wrong about the dollar.

He was wrong about China

He as wrong about US Treasuries.

Remind me why we should think he's right about 999?

 

[Liberty]

He was wrong about hyperinflation.

He was wrong about the dollar.

He was wrong about China

He as wrong about US Treasuries.

Remind me why we should think he's right about 999?

he was right about the housing bubble. the others have yet to burst.

 

[8537]

He was wrong about hyperinflation.

He was wrong about the dollar.

He was wrong about China

He as wrong about US Treasuries.

Remind me why we should think he's right about 999?

he was right about the housing bubble. the others have yet to burst.

He and dozens of other economists were right about the housing bubble.

 

[Liberty]

He was wrong about hyperinflation.

He was wrong about the dollar.

He was wrong about China

He as wrong about US Treasuries.

Remind me why we should think he's right about 999?

he was right about the housing bubble. the others have yet to burst.

He and dozens of other economists were right about the housing bubble.

name two. If so many economists were right about it, how come EVERY economist in the Bush administration and in Freddie/Fannie Dodd/Frank was wrong?

 

[Full-Auto]

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, Occupy Wall Street - YouTube

Mixed review, thanks for the post.

 

[8537]

he was right about the housing bubble. the others have yet to burst.

He and dozens of other economists were right about the housing bubble.

name two. If so many economists were right about it, how come EVERY economist in the Bush administration and in Freddie/Fannie Dodd/Frank was wrong?

Meredith Whitney
Noureill Roubini (Neo-Keynesian)- in 2006
Peter Shiller (post-Keynesian) - in 2005
Dean Baker - circa 2002.
Nassim Taleb
Hyman Minsky (The original American Post-Keynesian)
Ken Rogoff

....I could go on, but there's a start. There are - literally - dozens more that can be found with a touch of research.

The Bush administration economists were wrong because they were...Bush administration economists. I'm not sure that requires explanation. Ditto, GSE Economists.

 

[Liberty]

ok, so answer my question then smarty pants. where were the smart ones in DC telling the federal reserve and congress to stop the artificially low interest rates and what not? Hm? Where were the economists that actually had power? Hm?

 

[8537]

ok, so answer my question then smarty pants. where were the smart ones in DC telling the federal reserve and congress to stop the artificially low interest rates and what not? Hm? Where were the economists that actually had power? Hm?

I did answer your question. Shall we move those goalposts just a wee-bit further? I never said anything about economists in DC or within The Fed.

...But it wasn't "artificially low interest rates" that caused the problem. It was artificially inflated capital ratios.

 

[Liberty]

tomatoes, tomahtoes.

the point is, no one stopped the problem, they let it burst. Schiff is one of the VAST MINORITY that said hold on to your hats, thus he has credibility.

 

[8537]

tomatoes, tomahtoes.

the point is, no one stopped the problem, they let it burst. Schiff is one of the VAST MINORITY that said hold on to your hats, thus he has credibility.

No, he's not part of a "vast minority". Only in the land of Fox News was this crisis not predicted by a wide range of economists of all stripes.

And for being so "right", you'd think he would have hedged Euro Pacific. Instead, his firm lost 40% in 2008 - and went on to be wrong about hyperinflation, the dollar, treasuries, China....

Thus, he lacks a bit of credibility - but he as a big microphone.

 

[Liberty]

you'd think the government would have one person with the brains to have saw this coming. just one, to ring the bell. they didn't.

 

[8537]

you'd think the government would have one person with the brains to have saw this coming. just one, to ring the bell. they didn't.

Indeed! We can agree on that. Part of the problem is that the people in charge don't want to see or admit that something might be wrong, lest they lose power. So they explain any negatives away and hope the problem is put off into the next officeholder. It worked for Clinton, it worked for Bush (almost!)

 

[Liberty]

you'd think the government would have one person with the brains to have seen this coming. just one, to ring the bell. they didn't.

Indeed! We can agree on that. Part of the problem is that the people in charge don't want to see or admit that something might be wrong, lest they lose power. So they explain any negatives away and hope the problem is put off into the next officeholder. It worked for Clinton, it worked for Bush (almost!)

I like Schiff, I think he makes a lot of sense, a lot more than the likes of say, Robert Reich and Krugman.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, Occupy Wall Street - YouTube

Possibly, ...

...but this is the side of 9-9-9 that the Media will show:

Consider two people: one who earns $30,000 a year and spends all of it by necessity, and one who earns $500,000, spends $100,000 of it and saves or invests the remainder. Under Cain's plan, the first person would pay an 18 percent tax on that $30,000: nine percent in income tax and nine percent in sales tax. But the second person would only pay about 11 percent in taxes on their $500,000 income: nine percent in income tax and 1.8 percent in sales tax, since only 20 percent of their income would be subject to the sales tax, and savings and investments wouldn't be taxed at all.

"Businesses will tax all wages, because wages don't seem to be deductible," Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Urban Institute, told IBTimes. "People, when they receive those wages, will pay another 9 percent tax on it, and then when they spend it, they'll pay another nine percent."

That is a 27 percent effective tax on wages -- but a zero percent tax on income from investments and capital gains.

"The obvious winners are the big guys who get a lot of their income from capital gains, and capital gains would not be taxed at all," Williams said. But the majority of Americans who make their living from wages, not capital gains, would be hammered under the 9-9-9 plan.
Consider two people: one who earns $30,000 a year and spends all of it by necessity, and one who earns $500,000, spends $100,000 of it and saves or invests the remainder. Under Cain's plan, the first person would pay an 18 percent tax on that $30,000: nine percent in income tax and nine percent in sales tax. But the second person would only pay about 11 percent in taxes on their $500,000 income: nine percent in income tax and 1.8 percent in sales tax, since only 20 percent of their income would be subject to the sales tax, and savings and investments wouldn't be taxed at all.

"Businesses will tax all wages, because wages don't seem to be deductible," Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Urban Institute, told IBTimes. "People, when they receive those wages, will pay another 9 percent tax on it, and then when they spend it, they'll pay another nine percent."

That is a 27 percent effective tax on wages -- but a zero percent tax on income from investments and capital gains.

"The obvious winners are the big guys who get a lot of their income from capital gains, and capital gains would not be taxed at all," Williams said. But the majority of Americans who make their living from wages, not capital gains, would be hammered under the 9-9-9 plan.
Herman Cain's 999 Plan: Will It Work? Experts Speak Out - International Business Times

 

[Liberty]

PC, isn't that the whole Austrian Vs. Keynesian thing reborn?

Do people who spend money help the economy (consumerism)?
Do people who save money and invest it in their businesses, lives, and other larger purchases help the economy?

 

[8537]

you'd think the government would have one person with the brains to have seen this coming. just one, to ring the bell. they didn't.

Indeed! We can agree on that. Part of the problem is that the people in charge don't want to see or admit that something might be wrong, lest they lose power. So they explain any negatives away and hope the problem is put off into the next officeholder. It worked for Clinton, it worked for Bush (almost!)

I like Schiff, I think he makes a lot of sense, a lot more than the likes of say, Robert Reich and Krugman.

I actually don't care for any of them - to be honest, outside of Roubini I can't think of a media-darling economist that I like. But that's all good...

Reich's always been a hack. To my view, Schiff and Krugman both did some really great work before becoming media talking heads who must take strong stands and pontificate.

 

[Oddball]

He was wrong about hyperinflation.

He was wrong about the dollar.

He was wrong about China

He as wrong about US Treasuries.

The same way the Paul Eherlich was wrong, yet welshed on his bet with Julain Simon.

But fear not, all we'll have to do is move the goalposts in the same manner to make Schiff right too.

 

[Liberty]

fair enough

 

[8537]

Do people who spend money help the economy (consumerism)?
Do people who save money and invest it in their businesses, lives, and other larger purchases help the economy?

Yes! To both....

The thing that kills the economy is when consumers quit spending and investors find nothing worthy of investment.