From Peter Schiff, of course. He speaks at the Austrian Scholars Conference, which you must attend.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/9154/good-sense-in-the-wall-street-journal/
Good sense in the Wall Street Journal
Previous post: On the quiz
Next post: Higgs on the coming hyperinflation
{ 18 comments }
Which I must attend? Only if Congress makes me under threat of violence…
Mr. Schiff has provided another excellent commentary.
While not specifically mentioned by him, I can not help but think that the vast majority of politicians, bureaucrats, and economists also support these Keynesian/New Deal policies because their power, influence, and position in society and eventual compensation increases with their implementation. Money and power are tremendous motivators for many individuals, and most unfortunately in this case reason and truth are victims.
As usual, Peter Schiff is right on the money
Thanks for the link. Peter Schiff is very clear, concise and compelling.
Peter Schiff in 2012!
I was curious as to whether there is a corresponding increase in the number of hits at this site whenever Schiff mentions the Austrian School of Economics.
I love Peter’s take on things, and I am following his advice – investing heavily in gold and other commodities.
However, I wish he, and the Austrian School in general, would stop using the phrase “faith in the free markets.”
Faith is for fairy tales. Faith is for Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Socialism. Faith is people sitting around praying for something in exchange for nothing. Faith is what gets societies in these messes. When I tell a Keynesian or a Socialist that we need to have “faith in the free markets,” I am giving them the intellectual upper hand. In the battlefield of ideas, that is the equivalent of allowing your enemy to choose the terrain.
There has to be a better way to phrase such an idea. It is not faith, after all, if we can prove that our ideas actually work. After Mises proved Socialism to be impossible it was the Socialists who had to rely on faith – i.e. faith that they’d figure out a way if only human mentality could be altered.
First we should always focus on the fact there are little to no free markets anymore, and that every sector of the economy suffering a downturn is heavily planned and regulated. Then we should turn the argument to the benefits of a free market.
I’m sure others have a much better way of arguing these things, but the “faith” line has got to go.
David
I second David’s point. If you think about it, that is the reason we have the term “free market fundamentalism” from those who would see an activist government. Maybe we ought to simply say “here’s what the free market will do”. But I would add that those who are opposed to the idea of “free market” would still call it a faith.
I’d avoid the phrase “free market” entirely, and phrase it in terms of what actual people will do.
The WSJ has been impressively varied in their coverage of economic opinions lately. I would have expected them to be wishy-washy with their free market advocacy at best, but have been surprised on a number of occasions. I’m not sure if this has been posted on Mises.org, but another good one came from Jim Grant about a week ago:
The Problem With the Federal Reserve’s Money-Printing
I am in complete agreement with David and Pat with respect to the ue of the term “faith.”
Although, in denotation the word certainly encompasses the type and extent of belief we have in the ability of free markets to serve mankind generally, the frequent connotation of the word—to signify an area or extent of belief surpassing that ordinarily available through the exercise of reason—opens up for both critics and inquirers a fertile ground for misimputation, whether honestly come by or inspired by malicious intent. I need hardly point out that the belief of which we speak rests squarely on the logical process which we share with all other men, whehter they are our ideological allies or oppponents whom we seek to persuade (through that sae process) of the validity of our views.
We can afford to surrenr a word or two here and there, especially in the interest of clarity.
Not only can we afford to surrender one here or there but, rereading what I wrote, I could afford to misspell–
or mistype–a few fewer.
The use of the term “faith” is a tricky issue. Yes, the free market will work regardless of whether or not one has faith in it. However, if we do not have faith in the free market, the politicians will not allow it to work. So in that sense it will not work unless there is sufficient support for the free market among the masses. It is a catch-22 situation, much like our health care quagmire.
i think “faith” is fine. “i have faith in my doctor”, means that i’m confident of his ability, even though i don’t know exactly what’s in his head. it doesn’t mean i worship him.
free-marketeers don’t know what specific innovations entrepreneurs will come up with, and so must market a thought-process (an intangible). the central planner is marketing a physical project, politically a much easier task.
i’ve listened to schiff over several years, and admire his pugnacity for being a bear when it wasn’t so popular. his views on investing outside the usa have been sorely tested in the meltdown, and he’s got some strange ideas about how economies are linked internationally. i hope he’s challenged over these at the conference.
oh, did i mention he’s a best-seller author with a new book coming out? how silly of me to forget.
how about “confidence” ?
From the 80s to the early 2000s, I read the WSJ religiously and felt disappointed if I missed a day. Then it began its descent into pablum–and liberal soft-mindedness on the news pages. I don’t read it anymore.
Sure, much as a blind pig will find the occasional acorn, they might find themselves publishing a good editorial letter, but they have no credibility with me anymore–just another outlet for the formulaic liberalism of Mainstream Media writers.
to kevin b:
“con” in the mouth of a manipulator! a bit like “capitalism”, we’re always going to have to argue our points and defend meanings from becoming mindless slogans.
Try “trust”. Trust has two components:
1. knowledge/ability to perform.
2. mindset to act to your benefit (and not their own).
You wouldn’t trust a doctor who didn’t know medicine nor one who you thought would only recommend things which would benefit himself.
The free market is self selecting in who gets the rewards to those who fill both 1 and 2.
Other systems fall victim to failures due to either 1 or 2 (or both).
Comments on this entry are closed.