Bitcoin Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L7SOPDOvvI


Basically his point is that gold has intrinsic value, while Bitcoin doesn't, and that most of the BTC is being hoarded and not actually used in commerce. This leads him to believe the price is highly inflated.

And what do you think?

Well he's not wrong. Bitcoin has very little intrinsic value. It does cost resources to produce. But the product of those resources is just tons of giga-hashes and the appropriate hashing equipment. Maybe if Bitcon's proof-of-work was something useful that would be a different case. Then maybe people would want Bitcoins for their own usefulness.

Also there's no doubt that people are entering Bitcoin mostly because they're expecting the price in the future to be higher. Definitely not because there's a lot you can do with Bitcoin at the moment, because there isn't. In fact, adoption by merchants seems to be the biggest thing the community is trying to achieve. So that means the bulk of Bitcoin-wealth right now is speculation. And that definitely spells a bubble.

Give the man a break. Peter Schiff has been right on so many accounts, he's allowed to miss this one.

I think the fifth time I've dropped this insightful post in response to "bubble": http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ca/2013/04/bitcoin-is-money-bitcoin-is-bubble.html (http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.ca/2013/04/bitcoin-is-money-bitcoin-is-bubble.html)

Snippet:

not that old chestnut,

again...

Well, maybe a little wrong.


Both are true with gold as well.  Gold's intrinsic value is what it could be used for if it wasn't desired for it's monetary value, and as a jewlry doesn't count.  Gold does have industrial uses that are ignored because it's monetary value prices it out of that market, but if it no longer had any monetary value, it'd be fair to say that gold wouldn't be significantly more valuable to industry than lead is.  I wouldn't think that knowning that the intrinsic value of the stuff you're investing in is about one-thousanth of what it's current market value is would sound to many of his listeners as an acceptable bottom.

What Peter means when he says that bitcoins (the currency) has no intrinsic value, he really means that it has no non-monetary use.  In this sense, he is correct.  Bitcoin has no non-monetary use.  However, Bitcoin (the system/netwrok) does have features/characteristics that have usefulness beyond the context of a simple means of exchange, and all of those features require the use of bitcoins (the currency) to utilize.  In this sense, Bitcoin does have an 'intrinsic value' in the economic sense.  While I can't pay my taxes with it, I certainly can do many useful things with it, that no other curerncy in history can do without third party help.

Such as create blockchain enforcable contracts...
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts

And, perhaps eventually, the transfer of asset titles...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AnkP_cVZTCMLIzw4DvsW6M8Q2JC0lIzrTLuoWu2z1BE/edit?pli=1
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24620-bitcoin-moves-beyond-mere-money.html

And the (terriblely underused) transaction scripting system promises to do much, much more

I, for one, do see value in a completely impartial, automated and near zero cost system that not only replaces most of the functions of brick * mortor banks, but most of the functions of the county clerck as well.


As noted above, I want them for their unique usefulness.  But even if I didn't, my gigahashes also heat my bsement in winter.  Nothing is wasted as far as I am concerned.


Time will tell.

Majority of gold's value is in its ability to withstand hostile environments so it makes a perfect store of value. Its value is not so much that you could eat it and live with just gold on your pocket. It is valuable because other people want to accept it as payment. Same goes with bitcoin. However, bitcoin has really no other use than to transfer wealth but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value. The value of bitcoin comes from its ability to absolutely stay the amount for eternity, divisibility, etc. etc. This so called "intrinsic value" of a currency is no more than just the convenience of wealth exchange the currency provides.

I disagree. The "intrinsic value" is absolutely massive, but perhaps not obvious. A bitcoin is a unique type of data which can be copied millions of times, as is usual, but unlike other data can't be counterfeited. It is a perfect implementation of DRM. It also has its ledger system and peer-to-peer transmissability. All of this gives utility for digital commerce which is "intrinsic" to it.


Exactly.

I love peter Schiff as much as any other libertarian, but guys, come on... He has millions of dollars invested in gold and built his ENTIRE company around precious metals.  Maybe a LITTLE bias coming through there.  

The other day he claimed that moving the decimal place for bitcoin is the same as "printing" money.  So yeah.  You can predict the housing collapse and be ignorant.

What Peter misses is that "intrinsic" also means non-tangible value like trust/security/absolution (2+2=4) and thus can't be coerced by any government.

It's really pathetic to see him still trying to talk down Bitcoin even after he admits that it is too complex for him to understand. So he ultimately disqualifies himself on being a qualified candidate to speak educatedly on the topic of "Gold vs Bitcoin".

lol

After all, he's only human.  He's spent his entire career talking about and selling gold.  One can really expect for every smart man to notice the inflection points in history while it's happening.   A lot of people were still investing in buggys & horse whip manufacturing long after Ford Motor Company was mass producing the Model T.

Agreed. But what goldbugs fail to understand (which was me too until 1 year ago) is that gold is best for 19th Century face-to-face commerce, It is not good enough for a 21st Century economy where most transactions are remotely executed. This is why fiat survives even though CBs are forced to print it to death because of FRB and government debts. Crypto is a 21st Century currency fit for purpose.

And that's what makes bitcoin Gold 2.0.

I'm exactly the same way, except I mostly hold silver.  I've never directly bought anything with silver, but I've bought everything from mobile phone service to honey candies to digital artifacts (TF2) to handmade things on Etsy with bitcoin.

Reading between the lines, Schiff is coming from a strict interpretation of Mises Regression Theorem with regard to "intrinsic value". Overly strict interpretation thereof is a problem for Austrian economists with respect to bitcoin.

What people like Schiff need to understand is that "intrinsic value" is just a synonym for "utility" or "use-value". Well, bitcoin has fantastic utility as money in our modern electronic times....for all the reasons that he thinks gold is good money, with the enormous and critical plus of being instantly transportable over any distance. That feature is an absolute necessity for something to be a good money in modern times and guys like Schiff need to get over their mental blocks.

In that video, Schiff says that you can't do anything with bitcoin and that the only value is the hope to sell to someone else higher. Guess he hasn't heard of bitpay and their 10,000+ merchants. Guess my use of bitcoin to buy Christmas presents online doesn't count. Or when I bought CVS and Amazon gift-cards via Gyft the other day. Or paying for lunch with bitcoin. Or settling restaurant bills with friends......etc.

Furthermore, he dances around the implication of his own argument; namely, that gold should be valued according to its industrial demand. I think I've read that'd be about $300/oz. Well, it's valued a lot more than that because people think it has a monetary purpose. Same with bitcoin. He fails to acknowledge that his criticism of bitcoin applies equally well to 75% of gold's value.

Lots of Austrians are starting to denounce regression theorem, and/or fit Bitcoin into it.  Only those completely ignorant to Bitcoin seem to still be defending a strict interpretation.   It can be argued that Bitcoin has already rendered it false, if you interpret it strictly.  

He is pretty much wrong in every aspect.

I'm a long time silver bug, but I'd much rather pay someone with silver. At this point, I'm not spending a single bitcoin until they're accepted everywhere.

Here you go:
http://youtu.be/V8_HT8zfc78?t=14m55s (http://youtu.be/V8_HT8zfc78?t=14m55s)

I totally agree with all that. I think Bitcoin as a technology has huge potential. But in my mind that just cements the idea that the current price is a huge bubble even more.

Pretty much anything people say to defend Bitcoin's intrinsic value is stuff that Bitcoin is capable of, and may be doing in the future. Transfer of titles, contracts, even distributed corporations, it all sounds awesome. Even as a payment system it sounds awesome. How you wouldn't want to take a huge bag of gold with you to the airport, but taking some BTC with you is trivial. It all makes sense. But none of it is possible right now. And yet right now the price is continually rising to tremendous levels.

The argument is that Bitcoin currently has no intrinsic value. Not that it won't have it in the future, or that the technology sucks in general. I'm personally at awe of what this tech can do. But just currently, in this moment in time, none of that stuff is happening. It's barely even being used as a way to pay for things. So like I said, that means that the current price is driven by speculation, which cements the idea of a bubble even further.

Interesting post. Lots to think about.

Where it falls a bit short for me though is where does the anomalous overvalue come from?

In the case of gold you could say because of its store of value and other utility uses. Very few people, even nowadays with so many gold bugs, are buying gold in the expectation of making huge returns in the future. And of course that's true for fiat as well. At least I'm not aware of anyone buying USDs because they expect them to be worth significantly more in the future. We use USDs because that's the most common medium of exchange here in the US.

But with Bitcoin I'm just not seeing that. What I am seeing is the vast bulk of the people who use Bitcoin get into it on speculation of huge returns in the future. So the "anomaly" is circumstance and law with fiat, it's utility with metals, and it's speculation with Bitcoin.

It depends which definition of intrinsic value he is referring to  but arguably bitcoin falls into many of them

3. Economics: No intrinsic value exists for any good or service except its price (see use value) which is reflection of its demand and supply position and not of any inherent quality.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/intrinsic-value.html#ixzz2lM6avE1r


and

6. Record keeping: Worth of a document expressed in monetary terms, due to some unique factor such as a signature, age, seal, or circumstances in which it was created.


I like gold as well as bitcoin but for now favor bitcoin as

a) potential upside is x 5000 + of current value and x5 is already a fantastic investment never mind the other 3 zero's

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-10/bitcoin-plunges-25-government-scrutiny-first-btc-fair-value-reco-has-stunning-price-

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/11/Bitcoin.pdf

However, let’s use a broad guesstimate.
One Bitcoin should theoretically be worth 700
ounces of gold or p
retty close to $1,000,000
, if we adjust existing supply of both to equal each
other

https://i.imgur.com/GOYWUMo.png

b) gold has a talked about upside to $7,000 or x 5-6 but maybe 5 to 10 yrs away.

https://www.google.com.ph/search?q=gold+%247000&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=-wOPUqD6MsOTkQWPnIEo

So safer money in Gold and speculative in Bitcoin seems a sensible approach

Gold is a store of value which carries no counterparty risk.  Its primary use today is to hedge against the tail risk of total systemic collapse of the financial system, since ones ownership of it doesn't depend on the solvency of anybody else.  Very little of gold's demand comes from its non-monetary uses, so at $8T this is quite the "anomaly" indeed (though it's source its perfectly tractable).

My interpretation is that Bitcoin serves the exact same purpose as gold, only better, and it competes with gold for this role.  Therefore it introduces a risk to gold holders that they will need to hedge against by diversifying this holding to some degree into bitcoins.

Wrong. Bitcoin is the only programmable money in the world and everything is moving into the virtual world. Peter S. sells gold soo he is talking his own book.

During wartime, gold, silver and art will be confiscated and stolen. Not so with bitcoins

Peter Schiff is self serving, nothing more.

His Euro Pacific capital has exorbitant rip off fees. Most of his investment placements are in gold and silver. He's also selling gold and silver to his client base along with lots of gold mining and silver mining stocks.

His fund is also focused on investments outside US only. Notice the "euro" in Euro Pacific. As if Europe is better place to invest money than US, with European economies crumbling left and right.

So bottom line here is: people should be aware he's only advertising his goods. At this point Bitcoin is gold 2.0 and he has to badmouth the competition a bit so that his followers keep buying what he's selling instead of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has intrinsic value because it offers the best payment system world has ever seen (unlike gold or fiat) bundled with the currency itself. It's also becoming increasingly more expensive to mine. The price to mine 1 unit grows exponentially way faster than price to mine gold.

Folks like Schiff will be late to the party but better late than never. ;)

A lot of great posts in this thread - I'm tempted to quote 10 posts here.

I love Schiff, he is extremely clever! However:


Exactly!!!

I also saw that interview, and at first got a little insecure about BC, because I respect Schiff so much. However, when I heared that statement, I knew he had no clue what BC was and therefore stopped being concerned. Schiff + BC: For future references, please just disregard!

It's a good feeling when it all makes sense again...

OP, your bubble-statement is very true as well! But IMO that might change in the future, as more and more services offer BC, more and more people realize that FIAT is becoming worthless and are looking for ways to preserve their savings (and BC seems to be perfect for that!), and also BC becomes less volatile.

Schiff isn't self-serving though, he got a ton of integrity, that's for sure!

He misses that the intrinsic value for BC is trust though. Trust, anonimity, payment system, etc, and it can't be (to my knowledge) as heavily supressed and manipulated as the precious metals are.

It currently has the intrinsic values talked about already: Confidence, limited available amount, privacy, a bundled system, etc. - it has all of those values today.

Furthermore, what is a bubble?

I would say, a bubble exists when the price of an asset is way higher than its "real" value.

We know BCs price, but what is it's "real value"? Hard to say, as you can't really put a price tag to the values I mentioned above. But considering the amount of BCs existing, the amount of people in BCs and said values, it might or might not be in a bubble right now.

However, the most important thing to consider really IS when future value catches up. You might never see current price levels again anyways, no matter if it's theoretically a bubble or not - so you might as well buy now. BC is playing a special role here, because it is really breaking new ground. If you want to put it in stock market terms, it's a value and a growth "stock" at the same time. Buy it for it's value now, which may or may not be in a bubble. But above all, buy it for growth, for immense FUTURE value (if you believe in it)!

Having said that, I totally share your concerns about a bubble! This, and governments future reactions are, for me, the biggest arguments against BC. However, I have come to the conclusion that I want to buy a bit.

First time I watched a Schiff video and didn't make it to the end.

He misses the point entirely.

Ding Ding Dingaling!

Gold will be fine during and after the SHTF what sooner or later will happen. Until then bitcoin seems to be a better option. So I'm collecting BTC and some cheap 9-18K jewelry as SHTF preparation :).

In the late 70's, I purchased gas with silver dimes and quarters.

Those are exactly my thoughts! I figured Bitcoin is NOW, while gold and silver will be SOON, but maybe 1-3 years in the future.

Both should hopefully skyrocket at some point.

Peter Schiff is awesome...but he should man up sooner rather than later and admit he is wrong or at least might be wrong...

I have transacted with silver many times before.  Earlier this year I needed to buy some equipment...didn't have the cash and couldn't convince the person to accept bitcoin, so I bought the equipment with 120 ounces of silver.

Looking back today, I sure am glad he didn't take bitcoin!  ;D

I see this point a lot, and I feel like you guys are slightly missing the point here. The point isn't to say that Bitcoin itself is a bubble. The word bubble wouldn't make sense in that context. But that its current value as measured in fiat is highly inflated. I'm not saying it's some experiment that's over-valued and will implode and disappear in the future. Quite the contrary. I'm saying, and I think Peter Schiff is trying to say too, that Bitcoin as a tech has a lot of potential for the future. But it's just that, the future, not the present. Yet in the present the price is incredibly high and climbing. We'd be wise to ask why.

Asking what is a bubble seems redundant. The issue being raised is quite simple. What makes up Bitcoin's current price?

People have all sorts of answers when it comes to fiat and gold. Utility, the law, reserve status of the currency, governments buying gold, etc. But when it comes to Bitcoin it's really quite simple: Speculation.

I don't believe anyone could disagree with that. And if so, I'd love to hear it. Speculation seems to be the number1 determining factor for Bitcoin's price. We haven't seen any widespread adoption that would suggest the price should be around $1,000 yet. And we can't chalk it up to inflation or people fleeing from fiat, because we're not seeing a similar move in other assets. So again we're left with speculation.

And unfortunately, Speculation = Bubble.

Speculation generally doesn't happen in a vacuum.  There has to be some story driving it.  As I said above, the gold 2.0 folks are speculating that some fraction of the value stored in gold will have to diversify into bitcoins.  Will they be correct?  I like to think so, but nobody knows for sure.  You seem to be "speculating" in the other direction, but all you've got is wild guesses as well (I don't actually think the other side is operating on wild guesses).  If it ends up competing to some not insignificant degree with gold, then Bitcoin is money.  If not, it's a bubble.  Pretty simple.

Use as a currency rather than just money, i.e. a store of value, is ancillary to the valuation.  E.g. gold is pretty much never used as a currency, yet it retains extraordinary value.  I like to use the example where you've got 1000 people using it for daily purchases, each storing $100 in bitcoins at any given time, and a single person storing $100,000 of savings in bitcoins.  The latter contributes the same amount to the total valuation as the former, yet he's outnumbered by them by three orders of magnitude.  Now consider millionaires and billionaires, and you'll quickly see why use as a currency doesn't really matter in terms of valuation (though it matters a ton when it comes to building political capital, and staving off government attacks).

Edit: To give you some numbers: all the gold in the world is worth ~$8T.  Bitcoin is currently valued at ~$9B.  So the market seems to be saying Bitcoin should supplant 9/8000 ~ 0.1% of gold's role in the economy.  The speculators just disagree with this number, and think it should be higher.

Schiff keeps talking about gold's intrinsic value. Gold has no intrinsic value except the gold demand for jewelry and some very light industrial demand. Should gold trade based on intrinsic value alone, it shouldn't be worth more than 100$/ounce perhaps, even less. Most of its value comes from the hoarding done by investors, various countries and banks.

Most of the jewelry demand for gold comes from India and even there it's falling out of fashion. It's an ugly metal to use as jewelry and people are starting to realize it. More platinum, silver and other materials are used for jewelry more and more.

Bitcoin hasn't got intrinsic value, neither does litecoin, namecoin, peercoin, etc.

What does have value is the idea of a p2p cryptocurrency. All these posts and nobody states this, why?

I think Schiff has a bit of a blinder problem, but so do most people on this thread.

But that's not true either.  While I metnioned some huge things yet to be implimented well, the one thing that is inarguablely in use is the distance transfer and settlement functin of the Bitcoin netowrk.  This can be compareed favorablely to any banking transfer system or to Western Union, or Paypal.  No one would argue that these other systems don't have their own values, as reflected in their profit margins and market capitalizations; however those functions are characteristic of uisng bitcoins as a medium of exchange, and also drive some minimum demand for bitcoins if for that reason only.  That alone doesn't contribute to any significant 'intrinsic' value of the currency, but it contributes some, because markets do value those functions and the only way to access those same functions permitted by they bitcoin network at very low cost is to own (and therefore hold) some bitcoins yourself.

Hey, doesn't MS-DOS or Windows have intrinsic value? Nevertheless, Bill Gates is the wealthiest man in the world, selling intangible lines of code for 30 years now.

Oh, and I totally 100% agree with that. But ask yourself this question: Does that functionality alone, coupled with the limited ways to spend BTC, justify a $1,000 per coin price-tag?

If BTC was trading at above the old ~$20-$30 mark I'd totally understand. But at x50 times as much? Even with gold being hoarded by governments and central banks with huge power, it's "only" at maybe x10-x20 times its intrinsic value as for its uses in jewellery and electronics. How is it possible that Bitcoin is approaching the price of gold, while there's such tremendous pressure on gold from such powerful sources?

Again, I'm just trying to say that the current price is extremely higher than it "should" be, not that it should have a price of zero. It definitely should be worth something. I'm just not sure what that something is, but I feel it can't possibly be thousands of dollars just yet.

Of course I can't argue that Bitcoin's current market price is due to such funcationality.  I can't make that argument for any particular price, after all that is what the pricing mechanism actually does for us.

However, the same can be said for gold.  If one could seperate gold's intrinsic value from it's monetary value, how much would it be?  No one really knows, but it's certainly less than it's currency market value, since the monetary value is in there as well.  Gold is horded by governments & cnetral bankers because of it's moneteary value, not because it makes great radiation shielding.  Personally, I wouldn't say that gold would have an industirial value higher than silver does; particuarly since industry has already consumed enough silver that the above ground, refined stocks of gold exceeds that of silver.  The natural ratio of scarcity ( 16.5 times as much silver as gold) is wrong in our modern context.

BTW, that's one reason that I favor silver over gold in my personal stocks; because if gold ever does lose it's monetary value in the market, there's more of it available than silver, and silver has more known industrial uses.  The other is that silver has very real anti-microbial properties that makes it more useful after TEOTWAWKI for my own family than gold would be.

PS, please excuse my dexlexia, I'm having a particularly bad day.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/22/investing/gold-prices/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

peter isn't going to know what hit him. he may be looking for a new job soon :D
gold is going back down to ~300. the bitcoin rises!

peter: "It's Tulip Mania 2.0, not Gold 2.0,"

I would prefer gold
if bitcoin rises higher than gold, I would cashout my bitcoins for gold

Great post, and with your edit you put it on a mathematical level! That's exactly how it is!

Again: Confidence in it (plus speculation, true).

I don't know if you are familiar with the stock concept of value/growth, but something doesn't have to be cheap to be a good investment (value), it's also fine if it has a lot of future potential and that potential does indeed unfold in the future (growth). You are right: If you don't believe in BCs value catching up to it's price, you maybe shouldn't invest in it. At current prices, I'm willing to make a bet that it will catch up though.

So what I'm saying is, don't just disregard the "future" argument, because it is a huge one!



I couldn't disagree more strongly on that statement. At the moment, almost everything is in a bubble: Money supply, stocks, bonds, real estate, and you can see it especially well with the skyrocketing art prices (record Francis Bacon sale recently) and diamond prices. The only thing that comes to my mind right now that's not in a bubble (let's leave BC aside) is precious metals, and that's because they have been surpressed relentlessly almost every single day, maybe like no other asset in financial history ever before.

I too respect Schiff.

However, I remember a youtube video of him was saying the same thing two years ago when BTC was in the single digits. If I would have listened to him then I would have made the worst discussion of my life. I believe the same would be true now.

Earlier this year Karl Denninger at market-ticker called Bitcoin a "Bit Con" and advised his readers "Don't buy". Those that listened have done themselves out of a 1,000% gain since then.

Bitcoin is an indestructible and uncensorable data store that costs units of its currency to use. These qualities come from the massive amount of proof of work backing it, which would be extremely costly to replicate in a duplicate network.

It has intrinsic value.

Or, in other words: It creates confidence in it. That's its intrinsic value.

Many ways to express that thought.

To sum up why Schiff's "intrinsic value" argument about bitcoin is wrong:

1) His argument applies to 80% of gold's value.  If each bitcoin were backed with one oz of silver, an $850 price would not somehow be justified just because there is intrinsic value behind it.

2) Somali paper currency continues to be accepted with no central bank.  Paper is a reasonable medium of exchange, even without backing.  Something can be good money even if that is the only thing it can be used for.

3) If industrial uses of gold were taken away, it would still be used as currency and the value would not drop all that much.

4) Peter is over two years late predicting that eventually everyone will want to cash out all at once and the value will crash.  It already crashed from $30 down to $2 in 2011, and it worked just as well after it crashed.  Of course he used his standard method of predicting a crash while saying he doesn't know when it will crash or how high it will go so he can still claim to be right if it crashes from $5,000 to $1,000.

5) He is clearly ignorant of the fact that 30,000 merchants accept bitcoin, up 1000% over last year.  If everyone wants to buy stuff with their coins, as Peter predicts, they can spend them at bitcoin accepting merchants.

6) His argument relies on an incorrect super strict interpretation of Mises' regression theorem.  "Intrinsic value" is a synonym for "utility" or "use-value", which bitcoin has plenty of.

7) Bitcoin's blockchain will be used to transfer asset titles and to create enforceable contracts.  There is plenty of intrinsic value in an indestructable and uncensorable piece of data that can be copied, but not counterfeited.

8 ) Schiff claimed that shifting the decimal point in bitcoin was the same as printing money.  Lol at him.

Continuing to listen to someone who demonstrates such a high level of ignorance about economics is not very good in my opinion.  Honestly, I think it's an embarrassment to humanity that this guy gets enough attention to have several threads with his name in the title on this forum.  Here's a response I made in another Peter Schiff thread here:


Every once in a while, he does put a time-frame on his predictions and winds up looking like an even bigger idiot.

"I think sometime in 2011, if we make it out of 2011 maybe 2012, that we're going to have a crisis.... Interest rates are going to rise sharply in the US." -- Peter Schiff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv-Q9NxKWKI

There are reports of investors losing 70% with Peter Schiff in 2008.  Try watching these videos if you still think he was "right":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h_mEK91FWs
http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/peter-schiffs-clients-got-hosed-this-year-too
http://avaresearch.com/avanew/articles/713/The-Embarrassing-Track-Record-of-Robert-Prechter-Part-1.html
http://avaresearch.com/avanew/articles/302/Peter-Schiff-Wrong-on-the-Economy-Wrong-on-Healthcare-Part-1.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBNbdqp0-TI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUbhAbqKjOo
http://www.youtube.com/user/AntiSchiff

Peter Schiff = one-trick pony who gets it right roughly on par with a coin toss.  Victimizes dull libertarians.  <shrug>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFcTJAQ7zc4

Thx for the link.  I only watched 13 min due to monthly data quota, but will watch the rest after midnight.

Impressions:  Schiff does as Schiff does...breaks into the other guy's point after a few words, then blathers on saying the same brain-dead thing multiple times.  So far Stephen has missed some obvious counter-arguments which is frustrating.  Maybe he'll hit a few later in the show.

OTOH, what do I care if Schiff's sheep continue to take a shearing? <shrug>

It will be interesting to watch Peter and Erik Voorhees debate sometime after gold parity is achieved and held for a bit.

Might be that he's biased, might be that he's not.  But it was interesting.  Thanks for posting :D