Peter Schiff vs. Socialist Debating the Deficit

[Anonymous No.11481121]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-ybKwCkZDo&t=305s
Holy fuck, Peter absolute slapped this guy. How are socialists so stupid?

[Anonymous No.11481322]

"governments should be kept to a minimum size"

with the advent of crypto this will be inevitable. Governments will slowly operate like a very lean business and citizens will be the customer. Every infrastructure we want to be built could be voted through a smart contract and there will be no bullshit/fraud.

[Anonymous No.11481855]

I love peter Schiff.

[Anonymous No.11481886]

>>11481121
/ourguy/ Pete

[Anonymous No.11481955]

>>11481121

Where exactly did Mr. Chief Goldbug
>absolute slapped
him?
All he did was regurgitating "muh trickle down" memes.

I hope you don't mean the part about "workers are just collecting paychecks, that's all they do anyone can do that".
Because if you're really believe in that you're beyond saving.

[Anonymous No.11482044]

>>11481322
imagine doing elections through enigma's protocol with secret contracts, totally anonymous and decentralized
https://blog.enigma.co/secret-voting-smart-contracts-with-enigma-a-walkthrough-5bb976164753

[Anonymous No.11482274]

>>11482044
>enigma
kek

[Anonymous No.11482315]

>>11481955
The guy brought up clothes and shit you make in factories. Anyone could be trained to make that shit.
Workers aren't responsible for the products they make.
Ever notice how Chinese people never spontaneously turned into workers making electronic chips for computers and phones? It's because they need someone to organize all of the shit for them. The worker is a small piece in the puzzle.

[Anonymous No.11482392]

>>11482315
>It's because they need someone to organize all of the shit for them. The worker is a small piece in the puzzle.

People who "organize all that shit for them" are also employees. Even managers are still salaried employees.

also
>Anyone could be trained to make that shit.

does the business owner know how to train them? Is he ready and willing to spend his time learn how to do it?
No, he has to hire someone who does. And before that he has to hire someone who will find him someone who knows how to train (like a HR specialist or contract a HH company).
I'm not even mentioning marketing specialists, or logistics or maintenance of the equipment.

>The worker is a small piece in the puzzle.

Without employees your company is just a listing in commerce register or an business idea in your head.

[Anonymous No.11482648]

>>11482392
>People who "organize all that shit for them" are also employees. Even managers are still salaried employees.
>does the business owner know how to train them? Is he ready and willing to spend his time learn how to do it?
>No, he has to hire someone who does. And before that he has to hire someone who will find him someone who knows how to train (like a HR specialist or contract a HH company).
>I'm not even mentioning marketing specialists, or logistics or maintenance of the equipment.
Managers get paid more than the hourly laborer, but you're still not thinking about this right. The investors are the ones who organize all of the shit. The workers are not going to be held responsible if something gets fucked up. The investors are ultimately responsible and they are the ones who get fucked in the end. If I invest in a company, I am responsible for organizing everything. If I want to hand the reins over to someone more competent who gets paid a salary, then so be it, but ultimately I am the one responsible for organizing everything because I am the investor.

[Anonymous No.11482887]

>>11482648
>The investors are the ones who organize all of the shit.

The investors don't know how to do it. Warren Buffet knows didn't know how to organize production on a Coca Cola plant when he invested in the company. He isn't an engineer or a chemist. The investors make general strategic decisions, they aren't involved or even interested in the specifics (like how a production line is operating). It's not their job they employ people to that for them. It's called 'distribution of labor'.

>If I invest in a company, I am responsible for organizing everything.

So, if you buy Tesla stock you are responsible for organizing production of cars? If you're buying Intel then you organize production of CPUs? Investors aren't responsible for any of that. Even majority shareholders don't get involved in the specifics.

[Anonymous No.11482915]

>>11482648

>The investors are the ones who organize all of the shit.

No, because the investors don't know how to do it. Warren Buffet didn't know how to organize production on a Coca Cola plant when he invested in the company. He doesn't know how to do it, he isn't an engineer or a chemist. The investors make general strategic decisions, they aren't involved or even interested in the specifics (like how a production line is operating). It's not their job they employ people to that for them. It's called 'distribution of labor'.

>If I invest in a company, I am responsible for organizing everything.

So, if you buy Tesla stock you are responsible for organizing production of cars? If you're buying Intel then you organize the production of CPUs? Investors aren't responsible for any of that. Even majority shareholders don't get involved in the specifics.

[Anonymous No.11483546]

>>11482915
>No, because the investors don't know how to do it. Warren Buffet didn't know how to organize production on a Coca Cola plant when he invested in the company. He doesn't know how to do it, he isn't an engineer or a chemist. The investors make general strategic decisions, they aren't involved or even interested in the specifics (like how a production line is operating). It's not their job they employ people to that for them. It's called 'distribution of labor'.
You don't get it m8
>So, if you buy Tesla stock you are responsible for organizing production of cars? If you're buying Intel then you organize the production of CPUs?
>Investors aren't responsible for any of that. Even majority shareholders don't get involved in the specifics.
Yes, you have to understand what responsibility is.
If I own a car, I am responsible for keeping it running. I can pay other people to fix the car if it breaks down, but they aren't responsible for keeping it running. I'm the one responsible. If they try to fix the car, and they do a shitty job because they're incompetent, I'm the one who is fucked. The mechanic isn't fucked. I'm the one who is fucked because I'm responsible for the shit I own.
It's the same with stocks and everything. Everything you own you are responsible for. No one is responsible for the shit you own except for you.

[Anonymous No.11483606]

>>11483546

You're retarded.

[Anonymous No.11483693]

>>11483606
No one gives a fuck whether your car is running except you. Is that dumbed down enough for you to understand? Seriously, how hard is that to understand?

[Anonymous No.11483954]

>>11483546

>owning a car
>It's the same with stocks and everything

Not even close. Very bad analogy.

>Yes, you have to understand what responsibility is.

So, why don't you understand what it is? You ever held a job in your life?

>If I own a car, I am responsible for keeping it running. I can pay other people to fix the car if it breaks down, but they aren't responsible for keeping it running. I'm the one responsible.

If you are really comparing apples and oranges like that (owning stocks and cars) then owning a car is an analogy of owning 100% of stocks of a company. Which means that you're a sole proprietor and your company isn't even public (i.e. you literally CAN'T invest in it). This kind of ownership puts you in a completely different category as an 'average investor' you've mentioned before.

If you just invest in a company (like you said in >>11482648) you only own SHARES of that company. Or, if we're to continue with your bad car analogy, SHARES of a car.

Now the question is, if you own 1/100 or 1/1000 part of the car are you fully responsible for maintaining it?

In case of actual investors they own multiple shares of multiple companies. Using your very bad analogy - multiple shares/stakes of multiple cars.
No one in their right mind would claim full responsibility for keeping all these cars running under these circumstances.
And it's even less for real investors who own stock in multiple companies. It's humanly impossible to assume full responsibility for every single thing at every single company where they have ownership. That's why distribution of labor exists. As well as distribution of responsibilities.
Member/chairman of the board has different responsibilities than a plant manager/accountant/assembly worker. If you actually had a job before you'd know it.

[Anonymous No.11484021]

>>11483954
You're arguing with a brainlet /pol/tard, buddy
Just sage and move on

[Anonymous No.11484127]

>>11483954
I'm not sure what the mental blockage here is going on, so I'll just ask a question.
If a company goes bankrupt, who gets fucked? The CEO? The workers? No, they don't get fucked. These people actually get benefits if the company goes bankrupt. They get compensation for being laid off.
Who REALLY gets fucked? The investors. The people who own the company.

I personally do have a job and I've fucked up a lot of shit while on the job. I've damaged a lot of shit. I've mismanaged things. I've spoiled merchandise. And guess what? I'm not actually responsible for compensating any of that shit.

You know, you'd think if I was actually responsible for some merchandise and I spoiled it, then I should have to pay for it right? Yes, if I am responsible for something and that thing breaks or spoils then I should have to pay for it. But that's not how it works when you are a worker. That's not how it works at all.

You know who is actually responsible? The fucking investors. They're the ones who end up paying if the company isn't profitable due to incompetent workers who fuck everything up.
Does this make sense? If a CEO runs a company into the ground, he's not responsible. He is not held accountable. He doesn't get fucked. The investors are the ones who are responsible. The investors are the ones who are held accountable. The investors get fucked. That's about as plain as I can make it. I hope that makes sense to you.

[Anonymous No.11484178]

Fags

[Anonymous No.11484286]

>>11484127
Investors in limited liability companies LITERALLY have no liability. Protip 99% of companies are limited liability companies. They are not affected beyond the loss in value of their shares if the company goes into debt. They don't have to pay any of that debt. They have no responsibility whatsoever. That is the point.

[Anonymous No.11484297]

Peter Shiff is a garbage investor and tinfoilhat

[Anonymous No.11484325]

>>11484127

Legitimately you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.11484360]

>it's the workers who create wealth.
>No! It's the investors who create wealth!
>No, it's the workers! Look around you!
>No! It's the investors and the market.

Lol what a load of bullshit. This is the actual level of debate in the United Shit of America.

Can we agree that both workers and investors create wealth? Because one can't exist without the other. Lmao.

[Anonymous No.11484374]

>>11484360
but muh easy answer! i want things simple/black and white!

[Anonymous No.11484377]

>>11484127
>If a company goes bankrupt, who gets fucked? The CEO? The workers?

Just about everyone, but not in equal proportion.

>The workers? No, they don't get fucked.

Yes, they just immediately find another job, of course ;^)

>These people actually get benefits if the company goes bankrupt. They get compensation for being laid off.

It's very nice how bravely you speak on behalf of ALL companies in the entire world.

>Who REALLY gets fucked? The investors. The people who own the company.

As I said - ALL get fucked, but not in equal proportion. If you're a sole owner and you invested everything in your business - sure, you get obliterated. But if you are an investor with a minor stake? No, unless again you put all eggs in one basket and that was your only asset.
In case of former you have completely different level of control and responsibilities than in case of latter. I hope that makes sense to you.
I don't know why are you so desperately trying to equalize a small business owner with a average investor with a diversified portfolio.

>I've damaged a lot of shit. I've mismanaged things.
>And guess what? I'm not actually responsible for compensating any of that shit.

Good for you. But again, why do you speak for everyone? There are cases when workers actually ARE on the hook if they mismanage/damage things.

>That's not how it works at all.
>It doesn't apply to me! Therefore it must be true for everyone!

anon, I...

[Anonymous No.11484387]

>>11484127

>If a CEO runs a company into the ground, he's not responsible.

Except it will be a lot harder for him to find another job like that. And sometimes CEO's are put in jail. Ever heard of engineers who got sentenced because workers died or got injuries on a construction site/factory/assembly? I guess not.
You just extrapolate your warehouse job to the whole wide world.

>The investors are the ones accountable.
>The investors get fucked
>The investors
>The investors
>The investors

If the poor and oppressed investors are so terribly discriminated against they can always fire all the workers (like yourself) and do everything instead of them.
Why not?
They won't be responsible for anything because workers are not responsible for anything . I mean, if you said they aren't, so it must be true, right?
They will be able to break up shit and get away with it. They will save a shit ton on money on wages and salaries. They won't be responsible for ANYTHING. Isn't it just awesome? It's a clear win-win-win. Why aren't they making everything themselves? Are they stupid?

[Anonymous No.11484427]

>>11484360
>Because one can't exist without the other.

Exactly.

[Anonymous No.11484430]

>>11484286
>They are not affected beyond the loss in value of their shares if the company goes into debt. They don't have to pay any of that debt.
lmfao you realize that pretty much every single company on the planet goes into debt and they make regular payments on that debt.

if your shares go to zero, that is the absolute JUST b/c you are now fucked. lmfao 'no responsibility' Your shares go to zero, you are fucked. You're only responsible for something if it has the potential to fuck your shit up. Otherwise you can just say fuck it.

[Anonymous No.11484460]

>>11484127

> If a company goes bankrupt, who gets fucked? The CEO? The workers? No, they don't get fucked.

Depending on the company, the CEO can be "fucked".

The workers lose a job and can no longer pay their bills.

> Who REALLY gets fucked? The investors. The people who own the company.

Investors take on risk in association with investing. There are a multitude of government agencies that make it less likely for investors to be "fucked".

> If a CEO runs a company into the ground, he's not responsible. He is not held accountable. He doesn't get fucked.

https://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/ceo-behind-lehman-collapse-isn-t-sorry-dick-131017662.html

"Fuld’s 10.8 million shares of the company that may have once been worth more than $900 million, according to a study by Harvard University Professor Lucian Bebchuk, became worthless."

[Anonymous No.11484503]

>>11484430

> lmfao you realize that pretty much every single company on the planet goes into debt and they make regular payments on that debt.

The products in Walmart are all on credit or "debt", that doesn't mean it's bad business.

> if your shares go to zero, that is the absolute JUST b/c you are now fucked. lmfao 'no responsibility' Your shares go to zero, you are fucked. You're only responsible for something if it has the potential to fuck your shit up. Otherwise you can just say fuck it.

That's the associated risk you take by investing. What's wrong with that? Are you expecting someone to bail you out for making a bad investment?

[Anonymous No.11484515]

>>11484430
>if your shares go to zero, that is the absolute JUST b/c you are now fucked. lmfao 'no responsibility' Your shares go to zero

He is literally talking about a LLC. You do know the difference between a Limited Liability Company and a Joint Stock company, do you?

[Anonymous No.11484617]

>>11484377
>Yes, they just immediately find another job, of course ;^)
Losing a job isn't a big deal. People are fucking greedy and overleverage themselves with houses and boats and live paycheck to paycheck and they fuck themselves doing this. You're never going to make it if you are paying the jew your whole life.
>It's very nice how bravely you speak on behalf of ALL companies in the entire world.
People in developing countries literally line up in droves to work in factories. Working in a comfy factory job is a privilege and well worth it for them, even if they end up getting laid off without compensation benefits.
>As I said - ALL get fucked
And as I said, people only get fucked when they get greedy. If you're assets are invested in safe index funds, you're not going to get rich but you probably won't get JUST'd. Same thing, if you don't take out house loans, car loans, credit card loans, and you save and live within your means, losing a job won't be a big deal.
>Good for you. But again, why do you speak for everyone? There are cases when workers actually ARE on the hook if they mismanage/damage things.
How are they 'on the hook'? If a worker crashes the company truck, does he have to pay for it? No, and any company who would require that ought to be sued to kingdom come.

[stingy jack No.11484696]

>>11481121
I think one of the arguments was over workers creating the wealth. It is true workers add value to a product, but they need to add value in excess of their expense in order for the company to profit. The workers by themselves do not create any wealth. Few workers provide capital except as investors themselves.

[Anonymous No.11484729]

>>11484387
>Except it will be a lot harder for him to find another job like that. And sometimes CEO's are put in jail. Ever heard of engineers who got sentenced because workers died or got injuries on a construction site/factory/assembly? I guess not.
>You just extrapolate your warehouse job to the whole wide world
How many times has Trump gone bankrupt? Numerous times, yet he's the fucking President now? Lol @ Americans, but the fact of the matter is that CEO's aren't held responsible if their company fails. Yes, if they cooked the books or if they did something illegal then they will go to jail, but if they just made bad decisions, mismanaged money, bought superfluous things, etc, then no they won't go to jail.
>If the poor and oppressed investors are so terribly discriminated against they can always fire all the workers (like yourself) and do everything instead of them.
>Why not?
>They won't be responsible for anything because workers are not responsible for anything . I mean, if you said they aren't, so it must be true, right?
>They will be able to break up shit and get away with it. They will save a shit ton on money on wages and salaries. They won't be responsible for ANYTHING. Isn't it just awesome? It's a clear win-win-win. Why aren't they making everything themselves? Are they stupid?
There are companies that offer stock options. But at the end of the day it comes down to responsibility. Workers don't actually want to be held responsible for fucking up. They just want to get a paycheck. No worker would agree to drive a truck if it meant he was responsible for it e.g. paid for crash repairs. Not unless he personally owned the truck. That's how it is. It's a win for the worker because he gets a paycheck and doesn't have to be responsible for his mistakes, and the investors win because they get labor done that they don't have to do themselves. And the whole thing is consensual. No one is forced to work or invest.

[Anonymous No.11484773]

wtf, I love jewish bankers now!

[Anonymous No.11484846]

>>11484617
>Losing a job isn't a big deal.

Sure, because your bills will pay themselves until you will look for another job ;^)

>People are fucking greedy and overleverage themselves with houses and boats

I'm no so sure about the boats, but housing used to be quite affordable in the US, no? Like not so very long ago. Now it appears that owning a family home is already a great privilege you can only afford by 'overleveraging'. Hmmm, i wonder how did that happen... must be the greedy workers...

>Same thing, if you don't take out house loans, car loans

So instead of mortgage you will still have to pay rent. Unless your claim is that roof over head is also a great privilege and if you lose it then 'it's not a big deal'.

>People in developing countries literally line up in droves to work in factories. Working in a comfy factory job is a privilege and well worth it for them, even if they end up getting laid off without compensation benefits.

First you bragged about benefits and implied that workers get them just about everywhere. Now that we found out that it's not the case, turns out a factory job in itself is already a privilege. I wonder how low can you go with that... Is working unpaid OT also a privilege? Having no health insurance? No safety standards?

>How are they 'on the hook'?

Depending on the labor legislation of the country and internal rules of the company (which you have to comply with and sign before you start working). If you think that because in your case you could break shit without paying for it don't assume that every worker on the planet fits your profile.

>If a worker crashes the company truck
the truck is insured, but the worker will be fired / relocated to different tasks. If he's a professional truck driver it will be more difficult to find another job in the same branch.

[Anonymous No.11484999]

>>11484729
>How many times has Trump gone bankrupt?

You mean some of his business ventures went bankrupt. Out of hundreds he owned or had stake in. Yes, some of them failed and yes he's still a president despite of that. This just proves that investors with diversified assets are pretty much impervious to such loses (unlike employees who lose their only source of income in case of company going bust) and contradicts your entire argument. I'm not sure why you even brought this up.

>Workers don't actually want to be held responsible for fucking up. They just want to get a paycheck.

Employees still have responsibilities. I don't even know why are you so in denial about it, it's just ridiculous.
Or do you expect an assembly worker to assume the same amount of responsibility as a plant manager or a chairman of the board without receiving additional compensation?