Jim Rickards & Peter Schiff on the coming monetary collapse
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- Jim Rickards and Peter Schiff discuss gold prices, the Fed, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), and whether we'll have inflation or deflation.
Recorded by @kitco on 7/29/20
Invest like me: schiffradio.co...
RATE AND REVIEW the Peter Schiff Show Podcast on Facebook.
/ reviews
SIGN UP FOR MY FREE NEWSLETTER: www.europac.com/
Schiff Gold News: www.SchiffGold....
Buy my newest book at www.tinyurl.com...
Follow me on Facebook: / peterschiff
Follow me on Twitter: / peterschiff
Follow me on Instagram: / peterschiff
![Exclusive Interview: Jim Rickards & Peter Schiff Discuss Global Gold Markets [Full Discussion]](/img/n.gif)
I notice a lot of comments about my talking too much and not giving Jim a chance to speak. It reality I spoke for 14 minutes and Jim spoke for 12.5. The only reason I spoke more is that I spoke last. It was the host who cut us off and did not allow Jim much time to respond to my last comments. I had not idea he was going to do that. In fact, I very much wanted the debate to continue.
Well Peter I've found this chap quite frustrating as host.
Love your passion Peter. Great interview. You both should get together more often. I think your hair is turning to gold.
It’s okay Peter, you did a great job. You’re right it did end rather abruptly. It did feel like Jim didn’t get to finish. You cannot have a discussion unless you can both agree on the definitions of words. Which is why I have to go to UA-cam to see grown ups having a discussion.
Great interview,!!
Everyone complaining about you talking too much lol (buy bitcoin).
Mr. Schiff taught me more about economics in this video than I learned in 4 years of high school.
“I don’t care what the fed looks at, I care about reality” hahahaha thank god for Peter Schiff
@rjm And yet we are in a recession. The damage is done
@A W According to Peter. But he's always wrong with his timing.
@A W That doesn't mean it was gonna crash soon. We've been locked down for 6+ months and the "bubble" hasn't fully burst. I doubt we were gonna see the decline of Trumps economy had corona not being a thing. At least not as soon.
He's completely wrong about inflation though, doesn't matter how "matter of fact" he presents his pov
@@robs2579 how is he wrong? I completely agree with him, every dollar you create out of thin air will go somewhere. It doesn't just disappear , it will make something more expensive. It doesn't matter if it's vegetables or houses
Two of the finest Minds on the planet. I can't thank you enough, both the gentleman being interviewed and the fact that the gentleman doing the interview was kind enough to be quiet.
If we could only get Peter Schiff, Jim Rickards and Mike Maloney in a room together, the Holy Trinity of UA-cam Gold bugs, the moon might turn to solid gold...
It’s should be epic. 🙌🏽
And then it would crash into Earth because it's 2020. Lmao
I would Pay-per-View that!
Only if Chris Duane is the special guest referee
@@samartinez1988
Well gold is one of the most dense elements on earth, so maybe? 🌕🌕
Peter made a great job
And Jim is s cool guy
They should discuss more often
“the Fed cannot prepare for the next recession without causing the next recession”. 100%
hahahaha. well, guess what? The world is watching the Peter Schiff vs Harry Dent show face to face. So should we buy GOLD?. It's like the finals of the world cup. ua-cam.com/video/aGBqqEr64-o/v-deo.html
Yep, they're out of bullets
Look where we are now
I actually already watched this about a week ago. Not new (59 mins ago). Still worth watching these two giants twice.
Yeah Kitco had it on. Now Peter does. He always uploads anything he's been on.
The world is watching the Peter Schiff vs Harry Dent show face to face. It's like the finals of the world cup. ua-cam.com/video/aGBqqEr64-o/v-deo.html
Jim Rickards has a banker background, hence uses the Keynesian definition of inflation. Peter is using the Austrian definition of inflation. However, Jim knows Keynesian economics is a ticking timebomb.
Velocity it's used in austrian economics too.
I assumed the same, but I think Peter may actually be using the original US definition of inflation given the older Webster's definition. The Austrian definition is definitely more than just the money supply OTOH.
Take for example this video clip of Friedrich Hayek being asked by a reporter whether he thinks that money printing was the cause of the US inflation in the 70s, and if so then what was the cause of the earlier inflation:
ua-cam.com/video/IYoMZzhWEW8/v-deo.html&t=311
Unfortunately, there is level of aggression and arrogance in the way Schiff addressed Rickard who happens to be a celebrated author of many best sellers.
Jim Rickards has not only a banker background, but also CIA background ...
The 100 year old definition of inflation is no longer valid as we don't have a gold standard now, i.e. the $ is no longer "as good as gold"
modern monetary theory is like trying to steal your own hat -- and succeeding.
Except the hat is trashed
Haha 🤣
@wnc817 what's the Chicago plan?
Don’t forget many items have experienced “shrinkflation” where they keep the price the same but the item itself gets smaller. Many candy products recently did this just a few years ago.
yes I opened a "six" pack of chocolate bars the other day and you can now fit seven in the cardboard container. I wonder why they would have a box bigger than the items it contains.....
Lol I remember when I was kid potatoe chips bags would be filled to the top, now they are half of the bag.
Look at the size of McDonald's burger patties 😂
people in federal reserve don't even understand inflation, the way they measure CPI is just ridiculous.
Peter is the MASTER of Vocabulary and historical context.
Thank you Kitco,
Thank you David,
And an enormous thank you to both Peter and James. Amen
It's weird cause, in Hidden Secrets of Money, there is a part where Rickard's says inflation is expanding the money supply..rising prices is merely the outcome. Then talks about depending on velocity of the first few rounds of recipients is depending on the speed of inflation of prices. So basically Rickards is saying water dilutes the soup, Peter is saying the guys holding the pitcher pouring the water IN, are who dilutes it...not the water itself.
Fed prints and gives to consumers -> consumers demand products -> competition sees demand and wants money -> the competition brings excess supply driving down prices. So, the printed money reduced prices. In that case, the guy pouring the water in made the soup stronger.
That would not be true if competition were not possible. It's also not not true where the thing that is demanded is limited in supply, such as stocks which have a certain number of shares outstanding, so as demand rises, price can only go up.
With commodities, when the price of corn goes up, more farmers grow it, increasing supply and driving prices back down. When the price of oil went up, they found new ways to extract it, adding lots of supply and driving prices back down. The same will apply to gold: if prices get high enough, someone will find a way to drive the price back down with more supply.
So we could say the act of adding money and causing demand always drives prices down by increasing supply where competition is allowed and always raises prices where supply is limited.
Bluenami still need to get back to page 1... not at all what happens....
Federal Reserves sets a target yield target for interest rate(s). Using Open Market Operations, federal reserve buys treasuries with a maturity up to 1-year. If more liquidity is deemed necessary, fed purchases longer term bonds (“quantitative easing”). Bond are artificially driven up in turn lowering interest rates (page 300, you’ll get there one day). More recently, the federal reserve has begun purchasing ETFs making things more interesting. So newly created money goes to bond sellers. From there please provide evidence of the effect MPC these transactions have...
@@christianjensen5667 You said price is not a function of supply and demand, but something else more complex than that. So explain what determines price instead of how the fed lowers interest rates.
@@TheHandyman1999 The world is watching the Peter Schiff vs Harry Dent show face to face. It's like the finals of the world cup. ua-cam.com/video/aGBqqEr64-o/v-deo.html
@@bluenami7520 The world is watching the Peter Schiff vs Harry Dent show face to face. It's like the finals of the world cup. ua-cam.com/video/aGBqqEr64-o/v-deo.html
Peter is correct about inflation and how 'they' change definitions to suit 'their' agendas and escape blame. Just like the Real Definition of fascism has been changed.
FASCISM = The marriage or blending of corporate (aka banking) and state.
That is the Real Definition of fascism from Old Dictionaries. According to that Real Definition, yes, we live in a fascist nation. And we have, for quite some time.
Some like to say capitalism isn't working but we haven't been running a capitalist system. We've been running a socialist system.
@@zebratangozebra Grab a pre-1950 dictionary and look up the Real Definition of socialism.
@@glennw.4570 Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Pretty much describes our current system. Not true Socialism yet but it's getting more so every day and it surely isn't Capitalism. Government has it's hand in all three of the Socialism definitions.
@@glennw.4570 Check out the real definition of Capitalism before google changed it. Anarchy too, they have been changed to read something sinister.
Bullshit, I took my first econ course 35 years ago and that was the definition. What it was 100 years ago is irrelevant. Meaning naturally change. That is the definition everyone uses.
People talk about "there isn't inflation without velocity of money" that doesn't matter. Inflation has already been created. Think of inflation as a bomb and velocity of money as a lit wick. The lack of velocity of money only makes that wick longer but it doesn't mean that there is no bomb.
nice analogy and spot on
yes! i think of inflation as filling a water tank and all that's left is to open the valve
The symptoms of inflation (rising prices) take over completely once velocity picks up.
excellent analogy
Remember Walter during the early 1990s they changed the way GNP, the CPI and other economic metrics were computed. So, that's the problem the FED does not seem to be panicking, nor the government taxing the sale of gold or gold backed assets why? Out of turmoil and chaos emerges a new system and new currencies. They have prepared for this during Basil III.
Peter Shiff is correct Jim, productivity increases should have *reduced* prices, but Fed money printing stole those *price reductions* from us.
They agree on ALL the important stuff. That definition of inflation part changes nothing. MY prices for food, rent, health insurance, tuition, supplements, medicine, doctor visits ALL went up a lot during (and before) covid though. Cheers!
Lol JIM got schooled, this was brilliant to watch 😂
@Your Bunny Wrote or cease taxing energy so much and reduce the size and spend and scope of Government.
Well, their main differences was in the definition of “Inflation.” And I will have to side with Peter on this one. But I do love them both.
Good Video.
In Deflation debt and taxes become a real problem. Large companies will make less and less over time because it's a race to the bottom. (not a crawl) Either way having dollars is a bad thing ;)
Damn I was really digging what Jim Richard's was saying until he went all Keynesian, mumbling the b.s. definition of inflation. I feel your frustration Peter.
Schiff is one of the few who lives in reality and looks at things exactly as they are. Kudos to always holding your ground, Peter! 🐐
In the discussion about inflation Peter really had the superior arguments.
He backs up everything with evidence. Jim should have just realized and admitted that he didn't know what the dictionary stated inflation was 100 years ago and admit to learning something new.
the word "inflation" does not apply to a price level. Inflation is injection of particles into a closed system.
Peter, you fucking OWNED Rickards at the end.
Love this part at 28:30- "Money supply is inflation. Prices are just prices." *Absolutely*
Peter laying the smackdown towards the end 😂
Yea, that was a hugely powerful point, a show of historical knowledge and superior intellect with a combined awareness of the manipulations wicked people implement to deceive others through the misuse and manipulations of language, which is a standard M.O. for evil, corrupt people.
This discussion got cut way too early!!
They were just taking the gloves off ...
I’m with Peter on the definition of Inflation, I live in the real world and prices have been going up! If you look at the inflation as seeing 99% of the damage coming in the last 1-% much like the hockey stick of debt it makes sense, the central banks cannot find inflation because it’s coming all at once sometime in the future.
They are both right, however Peter gives more insight of what the cause of the inflation is. Jim obviously, either doesn't do his own grocery shopping or he just doesn't observe that prices are going up probably because he is rich and doesn't care or recognize and relies on CPI crap.
Gabriel W or someone has whispered in his ear. 😂😂😂
Where is Jim living. Has he bought his own groceries lately?
you are exactly right. look at all the products on the store shelves they have gone up at least 10%
@@tj8771 Not just gone up, boxes sizes shrank as well.
The quality deteriorated too. There wasn't a concept of organic meat back in the day because all meat was organic. Now, just think of the fake meat we buy and eat today. It should be orders of magnitude cheaper in terms of real money, not more expensive
@@tj8771 yup and that was reported on the news.So its not something that is made up.Average prices went up during the start of the whole coronavirus pandemic of about 7-10%.
“the Fed cannot prepare for the next recession without causing the next recession”. 100%
Peter the Great - educating the masses as usual on economics.
I am with Peter inflation is the increase in the money supply and rising prices is the effect of inflation
Price is determined by supply and demand while money supply isn't a variable in the equation. All you could say is money supply increases could cause more demand, but that doesn't necessarily mean higher prices since competition will respond to demand with increased supply and potentially drive prices lower. Therefore no conclusion can be drawn from money supply inflation. It doesn't mean anything.
Bluenami Peter is also correct that while the Fed prints the money, they don’t get to choose where it shows up. A lot of it showed up in higher prices for assets, real estate, stocks, bonds, commodities. Which explains why I am not able to afford a home. I agree that there are a lot of factors that affect price. But you cannot have a discussion unless you agree on the definition of words. That was Peter’s whole point. He wanted to have a discussion, but Jim wants to manipulate reality. I don’t know Jim’s reasons for doing that, he’s an intelligent guy, I’m disappointed.
@@bluenami7520 When Government inflates, "increases" the money supply, each dollar buys less. Stated another way, it takes more dollars to buy the same amount of goods and services as it did previously. Companies respond by rising their prices in order to maintain their previous profit margins, ( Buying power), in real terms to the extent they are able to do so. To my way of thinking, the problem is that when the money supply is inflated, that additional money isn't being supplied in the proper proportions to all participants in the economy. As a result, some win, some loose depending on what you sell or what type of assets you hold. Whenever additional money is added, it's a zero sum game IMO. Theoretically, if everyone could somehow be given the correct portion of the money added, everyone's purchasing power would remain the same in real terms. But of course in that case what would be the point? In my economics classes, we discussed inflation as also being defined as a transfer of wealth. I still believe the resultant wealth transfer that occurs whenever an economies money supply is increased is the direct consequence of money printing. And in most cases, I think it's safe to say, most ordinary Americans, especially the poor, would not believe that transfer of wealth was occurring in a good way.
@@rayme4raw You're saying when the rich get richer they use the money to price you out of the housing market? Yes, I'd agree with that. So in a way of speaking the money that they have came from you. The richer Bezos gets, the less house your dollar will buy.
@@davidsine4390 "When Government inflates, "increases" the money supply, each dollar buys less." Not necessarily. I already explained price is determined by supply and demand, not money supply. Money supply can affect demand, but it also affects supply, so we can't say what will happen until we know how supply and demand will interact.
"Companies respond by rising their prices" False. Companies cannot dictate prices. Prices are determined by supply and demand. If companies could raise their price in response to costs, they should do it anyway. That's why tariffs were a bad idea because a company cannot just raise prices to recoup the loss. If they try, they will sell less product and have less revenue which means less profit.
"additional money isn't being supplied in the proper proportions to all participants in the economy." True. The fed can only buy bonds and only the rich have the bonds, so the fed hands money to the rich who can't figure out what to do with it other than plow it back into bonds, stocks, houses, art, etc.
"it's a zero sum game" True. When the rich get richer, their money comes from everyone else. (Where else could it come from?)
"if everyone could somehow be given the correct portion of the money added, everyone's purchasing power would remain the same in real terms." True. Give everyone the same money and prices would adjust to negate it.
"inflation as also being defined as a transfer of wealth." From the poor to rich. Prices going up = dollar going down. If houses go up in price, your dollar is going down in terms of houses, so only the rich can afford houses which means the purchasing power you used to have has been transferred to them through the "silent tax" called inflation.
"the resultant wealth transfer that occurs whenever an economies money supply is increased is the direct consequence of money printing" Yes but it's not the fed that's doing it. Any increase in equity or issuance of debt constitutes money supply increase. When my stocks go up, I can spend the new money right off my debit card. The fed didn't have to create the money. If you take a mortgage for a house, new money is created. If the fed buys the mortgage, they didn't create new money to do it; all they did was transfer the mortgage from the bank to their balance sheet. The bank created the money when you took the loan.
First National Bank of Montgomery v. Daly
"Daly based his defense on the argument that the bank had not actually loaned him any money but had simply created credit on its books. Daly argued that the bank had thus not given him anything of value and was not entitled to the property that secured the loan. The jury and the justice of the peace, Martin V. Mahoney, agreed with this argument. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the justice of the peace declared that the mortgage was "null and void" and that the bank was not entitled to possession of the property.[1][2] "
Great discussion. You did an excellent job of metering yourself on this one Peter.
Holy crap Rickards agreed to do another duo with Peter...He is VERY forgiving. 😂
They are both correct
It’s just that they have Different school of thought.
Peter’s ego gets in his way though
Peter isn't the most congenial individual, but he is correct that there is and has been inflation in consumer prices. All one has to do is compare grocery bills from one month to another. I believe the increased cost in food over the next six months, will be palpable!
@@ryaneverett955 Peter has said on his podcast that he has alot of respect for Jim. Just disagrees on his definition of inflation.
It’s the same thing
Peter Schiff's argument regarding the true definition of inflation is logically unassailable as well as historically correct.
what a treat. Jim Rickards and Peter Schiff both on the same program.. good vid
A great interview by two legends. It's by different point of views that I've learned the most
That's awesome....We never get to see a debate of 2 great minds...much more mentally challenging and rewarding. Pls do again!
Jim: says something
Peter: corrects
Jim: repeats Peter's line
@Mr. Sarcastic You're
@Your Bunny Wrote Peter is using the original definition of inflation which is still employed by the Austrian school of economics. The monetarists and Keynesian definition are for price level and the former uses velocity but the latter does not. Both of these schools sought to change the meaning of inflation, but cross culturally via translation and historically inflation was only ever an increase in the money supply. It has an eventual effect on prices. What jim is referring to is the Fed's inflation has been restricted to increases in the prices of assets only, not general price levels (but even on that he is wrong too). See shadow stats website to look at the feds own measurement of price inflation before the cpi calculation was changed.
@Your Bunny Wrote businesses will sell at a loss sometimes if their costs are too high or demand is too low. The only factors that give anything a price are supply and demand.
@Your Bunny Wrote this is the deflation boogy man. I'd recommend the lecture on deflation from the miises Institute. Luckily this scenario you described and oft cited by Keynesians has not held true historically. An example is post bellum usa in the late 1900s, and a single year episode of the great depression of 1920 (note the year, no 1930). Good concerns though, albeit an inflationary setting produces these kinds of situations contrary to you view.
I'm so glad I finally came across Mr. Peter Schiff. People who know history, have the ability to discern the truth, and then communicate that truth logically showing real clarity on current events are like diamonds in the rough. It is so refreshing. Being early and correct on any given matter is so important. Critical thinkers are it.
watch his speech at the mortgage brokers conference where he predicted the housing collapse. its brilliants and still very relevant today.
Peter knows the game very well
I really like listening to Peter. 🙂
Somebody tell David Peter is also a best-selling author.
Yeah, I caught that ommission too! Noticed Schiff took it in stride. He's got a thick skin by now, after decades of criticism.
I could see it stung a little bit. Got to the competitive juices.
That’s kind of strange. This video opened for me to a Jim Rickards ad. He was wearing the same thing...
MMT is funny because in Argentine we've printing like crazy for most of the last century and we always had insane inflation (except in the 90s, in which we had a convertibility vs US$ then inflation was gone). And in the past year or so they started bringing up the MMT. I struggle to understand how ignorant and how dishonest politicians can be. Look at what the same political party has done in the past, how it destroyed savings time and time again, and now come up with a "theory" to back that up and continue doing it...
@@TheHandyman1999 everytjing goes up, yes. Poverty is high and has been for a while. Salaries do go up, but if i look at my salary converted to us dollars, it is lower every year. Basically you just cant save money. Most middle class can afford everyhing they need, but saving is not a thing. We tend to buy us dollars, but between 2011-2015 and then again since 2019 we are not allowed or are allowed to buy only 200. This leads to a black market for other currency
@@TheHandyman1999 more than welcome. Stay tuned for my first hyperinflation in 2021 (we've had many before but i wasnt born yet).
Peter Schiff is an Albert Einstein when it comes to the study of inflation.
Rickards the great harlot. Peter is in a different league. Genuine, no b.s. And truth Beacon. Great interview!
i like peters approach...i follow him..he make more sense to me
This is why words matter so much!
Now this is a good show!
I subscribe to Peter's definition of inflation. It is causal, not symptomatic.
It's not his definition. It the really is what the definition was before it got change to the new central bank definition. I checked in 1944 dictionary. Where it was definied as "Overissue, as of currency."
😂 that last Thank you had me laughing
How stupid that they don't include real estate into the inflation calculation. My grandfather built his house for $4000, building that same house today would cost way over $200 000, by not including real estate price, you are ignoring all the material inflation, salary inflation, etc.. . And they knew they should include it, but they are just pushing the can further away.
Housing is over 40% of the cpi.
I think it's more relevant to ask what $200 000 will buy today, and how much more, or less, $4000 could have been bought by your grandfather. In 1940, gold was around $630, i.e. he would have been able to buy around 6.35 ounces with the $4000. Today the $200 000 would buy around 102.88 ounces. So in 80 years the property increased by around 5% in $ terms, and around 3.55% in gold terms (Both compounded per year).
@@Brucejpw I think you've looked at an inflation adjusted gold price chart. Both should be looked at a not inflation adjusted price chart.
@@citycams-fc Yes, you are correct of course, the Gold price in 1940 was $33.85 which means he would have been able to purchase around 118.17 ounces then, so it would seem that the property appreciated by 5.2% compounded over the 80 years in Gold terms.
@@Brucejpw I see, I understand what you're saying. To me, something that turns me off about house ownership is taxation as well as maintenance cost + taxes, and throw in the interests owed to the bank. On the other hand, in 1940, it would be hard to come up with 4k without asking the bank, so gold buying must be gradual.
Both of you are awesome! I love coming back to these videos!
If Jim and Peter only have one disagreement, the definition of inflation, world economies are quickly heading into a much more devastating degree of dire straits.
Peter and Jim agree that gold is going to infinity: ua-cam.com/video/MCZqxB81S6g/v-deo.html
hahah so true
The best of the best in economics was just in this amazing back to back debate. I had so much fun watching and listening to this two eminence. And the moderator was great too. Kitco. Great combination
At some point the definition of inflation has been changed as Schiff points out.
Webster’s definition of inflation from 1983: “An increase in the amount of currency in circulation, resulting in a relatively sharp and sudden fall in its value and rise in prices: it may be caused by an increase in the volume of paper money issued or of gold mined, or a relative increase in expenditures as when the supply of goods fails to meet the demand.”
It's political, as Schiff pointed out in this segment. When people blame businesses instead of the central bank for higher prices, then people's anger is misdirected as to the source of rising prices, and we get the current political climate today where people feel entitled to more and more profits of businesses, e.g. $15/hr for flipping burgers.
Looks like that definition was half way between the original definition and the Fed definition. This is from the 1913 edition:
INFLATION
In*fla"tion, n. Etym: [L. inflatio: cf. F. inflation.]
1. The act or process of inflating, or the state of being inflated, as with air or gas; distention; expansion; enlargement. Boyle.
2. The state of being puffed up, as with pride; conceit; vanity. B. Jonson.
3. Undue expansion or increase, from overissue; - said of currency. [U.S.]
INFLATIONIST
In*fla"tion*ist, n.
Defn: One who favors an increased or very large issue of paper money.
[U.S.]
@@footube3 Great point. Altering definitions of words is a gradual process so people don't realize what is happening, coincidentally, much like how inflation itself is a stealth tax.
In the past it was normal to digress and disagree, however Peter Schiff is a Warrior. I enjoy this channel, thumbs up.
Financial experts starting to get into a conversation, let's end the show.
Thanks Peter for what you do!
Rickards needs to read Mises and lose that Chicago school nonsense. Great job Peter.
Hi Peter thanks for your videos! Always looking forward to you speak
Inflation? College, Homes, Medical. What they haven't gone up?
Two of the smartest men in any room.
Peter Schiff is right. I took a pic of all my previous orders on Amazon.com and researched the current prices on Amazon and it is rediculous how much they have risen over the past three years and even the past year to eighteen months. I also remember being able to buy 2 gallons of milk for $5.00 ten years ago...and now $5.00 buys one gallon here in Vegas. I could go on and one about the rise in prices.....in real goods that people buy every week.
Peter, you do dominate any conversation, remember the criticism of the Rogan interview. It was not about the delay Peter, you just are very passionate so you keep going which is fine by me because you speak the truth. Own your passion!
inflation is caused by the money supply increasing, and a lack of services and goods expanding at the same time. Prices going up is a consequence of the money supply expanding
Inflation is the increasing of the money supply by definition. Prices going up is a consequence of inflation.
Sorry, Peter's definition is actually the correct one.
Equating inflation and rising prices is not entirely correct. Prices can increase for other reasons as well.
This video is at least a week old, I saw it before. Jim and Peter are basically in agreement here. Love 'em both.
Is this a rerun?
Based on Peter saying no more pullbacks, this is obviously the episode before August 11th happened.
Great interview, thanks!
Wait, I've already watched this on kitco days ago :P
Peter Schiff WAS RIGHT AGAIN !
Lol yes Damm!
I'm waiting the video of the year "Petter was right" a 2020-2022 edition hahaha
Peter is totally right, Jim is way off on inflation.
Great discussion!!!
Thank you guys.
This is a rerun? This was already on Kitco.com.
Yeah Peter Schiff is a giant asshole that wants to remind people how he behaved here. I don't know why, it doesn't sell. He's totally disrespectable.
@@vutEwa Ah, and you're still checking out his videos. Got it
@@vutEwa he's made me 80000 € in 2 years.
Great bloke
@@vutEwa 🤣🤣 easy now
These two repeat themselves a lot ;)
So thankful for the sharing of these ideas as free content.
I'm a single 52yo Australian woman with a SMSF.
Watching and listening to you guys has reinforced my recent purchase of buying gold and silver....after selling an investment property. I can now sleep at night.Hope I did it in the right gold to silver ratio :)
Never thought that at this age I'd be listening to financial growth discussions instead of personal growth.
Congratulations.
Austrian school - inflation is money supply, keynesian - inflation is price change
You both very well educated should simply explain it to your viewers why you disagree on inflation definition
And Peter calm down please
Changing the definition not inflation, changes the origin of inflation. After all, the government is responsible for the money supply, and businessmen are responsible for prices. So, it is a tricky switch to define inflation as increasing prices, because the next step, often repeated in history is to blame the inflation on opportunistic businessmen. Schiff's passion is because he understands the consequences of repeating histoey
OK but put yourself in Peter's shoes. It can be frustrating. :)
Peter is right, but kinda wished they just agreed to disagree, they were arguing over semantics. I wanted to hear why Jim doesn't think consumer prices will eventually rise...
Terrible advice to calm down; MORE PEOPLE need to be Passionate about the Truth and shine the light on the evil schemes of wicked people the way Peter does. Rebuke all the foolishness caused by deceit and shine the Light of the Truth brightly...and the cockroaches will be exposed for what and who they are.
Inflation can't be flat because technology is inherently deflationary. It's cheaper to produce goods every year as manufacturing gets more efficient. So in theory things like food should be getting cheaper especially since the quality of produce like meat has significantly gone down over the decades, just think of vegan meat. But that hasn't been the case! The food prices are flat and/or climbing higher depending on your time horizon. So, if for example, nominal inflation according to the CPI stands at 2%, and tech or innovation driven deflation is 5-8% then the real inflation is 7-9%. Funny how they fool us, huh?
Yeeeessss. Glad to hear someone else say it!
The theft of industrial/technological advancements (via inflation taxation) is a cornerstone modern monetary theory
yes, prices will naturally go down in a technologically productive economy. we are not allowed this benefit under modern monetary policy.
Schiff is talking about core inflation = real inflation increase of money supply M. Rickards is talking about price inflation. We have have massive money printing but almost no price inflation because the economy is dead and there is no money velocity V
I stand with Peter about the inflation definition. That's how Mises also described in the 1920s. And Carl Menger in XIV
@Nasdaq trader yeah, that says it was magically changed throughout time. I'm curious why...
But I will give him credit for his clear breakdown of how he came to the 15,000 gold price.
That was the best / most valuable contribution by Jim for sure.
Peter is 100% correct on inflation
Jim talks in riddles, Peter talks straight to the point...
Bottom line is Jim makes his money selling books. If it's straight to the point and easy, there is no need to buy his books.
Peter schiff was right
It's funny when people (cough, my manger, cough) keep on saying over and over again "there's not enough gold to go back on some kind of gold standard" YEAH FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME - Not at these levels. The price would simply have to go up. I don't understand why that is such a hard concept to grasp. Dollars are all relative and actually irrelevant when it's a fiat currency. There's no limit to the amount of dollars they can print. You just simply put more digits behind the price of gold in those dollars. At the end of the day, gold is what holds its value. You measure what you can buy with it, not necessarily the dollar denominated price.
Gold isn't measured by dollars, dollars are measured by gold.
@@zebratangozebra That equals sign (=) between the unit of gold and its dollar value means gold can be measured in dollars and dollars can be measured in gold. Having said that, it's important to note that an ounce of gold hasn't changed...it's only the fiat currency it's measured in that has change.
The critics would say that you need the money supply to be elastic in times of crisis. A gold standard would not allow that and would break, they say. I'm speaking of Hugh Hendry in particular, but many other smart people agree with him. I'd like an opportunity to pick their brains and get them to paint some hypotheticals where they think a gold-standard would break down. Watched this yesterday and it was enlightening but still leaves many questions: ua-cam.com/video/Lt4PhkKTkik/v-deo.html
The Middle East has stronger fiat then the USA. America has more gold than the Middle East. If we use oil like they do we have enough capital to back this printing
zebratangozebra ever heard of the spot price of gold? Tell me what that number means, smart boi.
You can’t simply look at prices to calculate inflation. There are too many factors that influence prices such as productivity gains, innovation, etc.
As a big Rickards fan (& I read his books), I hate to say that vis-a-vis inflation Schiff is actually correct. The definition is an expansion of the money supply (as illustrated by Mike Maloney's HSOM series and his channel many times). It takes money velocity, added to the excess money supply to have price increases, and a sharp increase in both for a hyperinflation. Neither mentioned that new technology, which is a major (often exponential) constant is by nature deflationary, although I bet Schiff would have pointed to this, if he had thought of it. Unfortunately, I agree with Schiff that we cannot trust mainstream terminology which as he mentions is "central bank" engineered. Greg Mannarino explains it best these days for my generation, and these two guys are about to have their moment so should "play nice". Lol.
I like your comment I am a subscriber of Celentes Trend Journal
@@marcelinoperez2926 thank you. Great minds eh, I subscribe to the Trends Journal also! Since around September IIRC.
@@alexloc1446 Thanks for your answer, good luck, we will need it.
marcelino Perez - agreed although am confident that Mannarino and Celente will keep their followers on the right side of this. It’s the same advice as these 2 servants to the precious metals community (plus Maloney the “Don”), although they’ve been preparing since 2000 / 2002... Mannarino and Celente are accurate trends forecasters in their own ways... Blessed to have so many online educators and I include all 5 😎
Schiff is the best lol
WHY DID THE HOST END THIS!?! it was just getting juicy !
Prices have gone up 20 per cent where I live. Food, services, goods. This is just the start. Great interview. Sorry it was not longer.
Wow!!!!!!!! I like Jim rickards. But Peter Schiff destroyed him.
Jim is a central bank shill. Nothing more.
Mario Anda Peter didn’t destroy Jim. Peter was pointing out that you cannot have a discussion unless you can agree on the definition of words. It’s like arguing with a socialist. You tell them that socialism is stealing from the productive to give to the unproductive and all they can say is, “Not uh.”
Thanks Peter.
Pretty soon, the definition of inflation is going to be changed to "the unexpected price increase of the price increase". in other words, if the Fed expects 5% rising prices, and we experience 6% rising prices, that's "1% inflation".
Mark my words.
Don't give them ideas!
They'll call it a surprise % increase or decrease, kind of like they do with company earnings estimates.
This reminds me of my kids fighting over a drinking-straw. The boisterous one is making all the noise, but the quieter one ain't gonna be fcuked with either. 10 mins later and they've forgotten all about the damn straw! :)
Peter picked up this grown man and took him to school on inflation vs deflation.
I’m bullish on gold and I truly believe the USD is breaking down. I’m just curious on your thoughts about the $1 milkshake theory?
Generally big fan of peter, but the semantics are not so important like he made it out to be. Yes the mainstream distorted the definition of inflation, but ignoring money velocity and technology and all of the other factors besides money printing for price changes in consumer goods/assets is not good. Jim should have been allowed to make his point. I am a huge fan of his book aftermath, it’s really comprehensive. Peter, just adopt the two terms price inflation and currency inflation and be done with it. Enough of the petty tribalism. Jim is on our side.
Ah I see you’ve been reading my comments on other posts, technology is definitely what is off putting inflation & the rise of gold
The semantics ARE so important.
Peter is correct about inflation and how 'they' change definitions to suit 'their' agendas and escape blame. Just like the Real Definition of fascism has been changed.
FASCISM = The marriage or blending of corporate (aka banking) and state.
That is the Real Definition of fascism from Old Dictionaries. According to that Real Definition, yes, we live in a fascist nation. And we have, for quite some time.
peter is right though because jims working definition hides the more nefarious aspects of government and central banking. its not a potatoes potaatoes situation because the implication is that all of the financial dealings are intentional and deliberate even though the fed wants to pretend it is a passive agent in the game when in reality it is the only player
Doctor Pepe I don’t read comments, only replys . But there are several factors, globalization, technology, money printing, sovereign current accounts, money velocity, etc I don’t know them all. Technology is only one.
Glenn W. I agree with the semantics for fascism but that’s not a fair comparison. The government admits they are trying to create “inflation”. They tell you everything they are doing and in what quantities and percentages . so in some ways this is actually more cut and dried. My philosophy is don’t fight the government or fight the Fed. Just call it “money printing” then. That’s actually far better than “inflation” because it’s right in your face
Peter, right on, your argument on Inflation makes more sense that Jim’s. I respect both but Peter is closer to the root. Great debate!
Modern Monetary Theory is like the Hyperloop: An very old concept "rebranded as new" and that does not work in reality....
And Peter Schiff was right
Again ..
Peter is right. Jim is just too old school.
Jim is too close to his Gov. central banking buddies
Fun little arguement at the end by Peter and Jim. Peter wins!