Thursday, January 30, 2014

Peter Schiff: The Backstory to My Appearance on the 'Daily Show'

'The Daily Show': Intellectually Dishonest about the Intellectually Disabled
By Peter Schiff

When I accepted “The Daily Show”’s invitation to be interviewed about my opposition to a minimum wage increase, I knew that I was walking into a trap. But given how counterproductive I know that such an increase would be to those the law proposes to help, I took the risk anyway.

Of the more than four hours of taped discussion I conducted, the producers chose to only use about 75 seconds of my comments. Of those, my use of the words “mentally retarded” (when Samantha Bee asked who might be willing to work for $2 per hour – a figure she suggested) has come to define the entire interview.

I'm now receiving hundreds of angry e-mails and am being described in the media as a hateful bigot.

The irony is: I'm not a hateful bigot. And there's something I discovered while taping my interview: If anyone's insensitive toward the intellectually disabled, it's "The Daily Show" itself.

For the full story, please read my latest column below:


When I accepted “The Daily Show”’s invitation to be interviewed about my opposition to a minimum wage increase, I knew that I was walking into a trap. But given how counterproductive I know  such an increase would be to those the law proposes to help, I took the risk anyway.

Of the more than four hours of taped discussion I conducted, the producers chose to only use about 75 seconds of my comments. Of those, my use of the words “mentally retarded” (when Samantha Bee asked me who might be willing to work for $2 per hour – a figure she suggested) has come to define the entire interview. Although I had no intention of offending anyone, I just couldn’t remember the politically correct term currently in use (it is “intellectually disabled”). Assuming she knew it, Bee could have prompted me with the correct term, but she chose not to. By including those comments in the final package, “The Daily Show” proved that they did not care who they offended, as long as they could make me look bad in the process. The volume of hate mail I have received in the show’s aftermath confirms their success on that front.

When asked the $2 per hour question, I responded that very few individuals would take a job at that pay, even if it were legal. In a free market, businesses compete for customers by keeping prices down, and for labor by keeping wages up. Any employer offering even low-skilled workers just $2 per hour would be outbid by others offering to pay more.

However I did suggest two groups of people who might be willing to work for $2 per hour. The first group -- which was edited out -- was the unpaid interns who tend to value work experience and connections more than pay. (In fact, “The Daily Show” staffer who booked me, and who was present during the interview, had been thrilled to start there as an unpaid intern). Since many interns work for free, $2 per hour would be an improvement. Some interns are even willing to pay to work.  Since employers are afraid to hire them without pay for fear of violating labor laws or inviting lawsuits, they often hire young people working for college credit.  These individuals are forced to pay college tuition to get a job they could have had for free had there been no minimum wage.

The other group was the intellectually disabled, who are in fact already exempt from the current minimum wage law by federal regulation. Although many have taken my support for this exemption as some sort of advocacy for modern slavery, I offered good reasons for the rule.  While saying nothing about any person’s value as an individual or a human being, it is undeniable that the intellectually disabled have, in general, fewer marketable skills than the general population. Anyone arguing otherwise is just speaking from emotion. If an intellectually disabled person can’t perform work that produces a minimum wage level of output, then no employer seeking to make a profit could afford to pay that person the official minimum wage.

I further explained that since such individuals typically live with their parents or other caretakers, they are not working to support themselves or anyone else. They are working for the self-esteem associated with having a job -- the pride of working and making a contribution. Many of the jobs they perform may seem mundane to those of normal intelligence, but they are often the most enjoyable and rewarding aspects of the lives of people with intellectual disabilities. I pointed out that if the federal minimum wages were to apply to them, a great many of those opportunities would vanish. Others may disagree, but I believe a job for such a person at $2 per hour is better than no job at all.

Businesses are not charities, and employers are not in business to lose money. If they do not make a profit, they go out of business -- and all of their employees lose their jobs. Of course, for “The Daily Show,” all of that boiled down to my comment that "you are worth what you're worth,” which left the impression I believe some people have little or no value.

But “The Daily Show” was never interested in an honest debate about the minimum wage. Nor is it concerned with the intellectually disabled, whom they have no qualms about offending if they can get a laugh. In fact, it's “The Daily Show” that wants to tell the intellectually disabled they are worthless, as they want to make it illegal for them to have jobs. I did not notice any intellectually disabled people working at “The Daily Show.” I’m sure many would jump at the chance, particularly if they were offered minimum wage or higher. But since they choose to pay their intellectually capable interns zero, why should they be expected to pay the intellectually disabled more?

Note the full 'Daily Show' segment is here.

Peter Schiff is the CEO and Chief Global Strategist of Euro Pacific Capital, best-selling author and host of syndicated Peter Schiff Show.

36 comments:

  1. "Businesses are not charities, and employers are not in business to lose money. If they do not make a profit, they go out of business "

    Here is a lesson for you PUTZ! Those employees, THEY are the job creators. Without a consumer this country is DEAD! If no one can buy anything because you make them compete with Chinese workers making 300 a year YOU HAVE NO ECONOMY! Libertarianism makes you stupid.


    "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. " Abraham Lincoln, a famous socialist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If no one can buy anything because the minimum wage has priced them out of competition with the Chinese workers making $300 a year, YOU HAVE NO ECONOMY!

      Delete
    2. Da hell? You think a minimum wage will make domestic workers more attractive than outsourcing the labor to China? How about machines?

      Yea, you might want to stop talking.

      Delete
    3. Next time, try to write something that is coherent before you go around calling other people stupid.

      Delete
    4. That's the real tragedy. He did try.

      Delete
    5. Pal, get an education. Moron.

      Delete
    6. What the hell did I just read?

      Delete
    7. Anonymous @ 8:51 pm,

      Lord Keynes' blog "socialdemocracy" is just down the net, this is the EPJ.

      Delete
    8. you could just see ole sliver tongued Abe going from this talk to working men to a group of railroad executives defending capital then on to abolitionists demanding such then on to a group of slave owners.....

      Delete
    9. Fellas, don't you really have to begin and end any serious economics discussion with the contributions of Abe Lincoln?

      Delete
    10. The sad part is that the OP is more ignorant and retarded than most mentally disabled people, and it's by her choice to be retarded. If she would learn about Abe Lincoln she would see how socialist/fascist he really was!

      Delete
    11. "Those employees, THEY are the job creators."

      I know this is pretty obvious to most of the people who frequent Bob's blog, but this is a fundamental misconception of labor spread by Marxism.

      If the laborers were the job creators, the Capitalists could just not exist and we'd still have iPhones, Windows, Automobiles, or any consumer good that requires savings and investment, as well as entrepreneurial ideas that people are willing to invest in.

      If this were correct, the employees who feel this way should quit their jobs and start their own company where they are the bosses. That way, given the context of this post, they would all be successful and rich, and would really show the Capitalists a thing or two.



      The reality is obviously this is not the case. Entrepreneurs are fundamental in providing goods for consumption, just as Capitalists are. "Labor" is just an input in providing consumption goods, and as such, it is subject to substitution and efficiencies as part of the profit and loss metrics that go into producing the consumer goods.

      What is happening now is that human labor is becoming too expensive relative to technological labor, and that technology is being substituted for humans. "Expensive" is, as I said, relative and can be seen as more efficient overall given whatever the parameters are for a given consumers good.

      The minimum wage creates an artificial cost that has to be considered in the profit and loss test for goods producers. If your human labor costs $10 per hour but is just as efficient as $6 an hour labor, you've just created a cost of inputs increase with no corresponding output increase that impacts profitability.

      That artificial cost impact in the labor market creates "unseen" impacts, mirroring the Broken Window fallacy. Human laborers who are worth the $10 per hour will not see an increase in wage. Why? If you're worth $10 per hour and your current employer isn't paying you that, another employer that understands their production process and what requires profitability will gladly pay you what you're worth. So, if you're not already receiving $10 and feel you're worth it, you're job hunting at employers who are willing to pay you that. That's a slam dunk for an employer to hire human labor that is worth the money. So, you're either already getting paid the $10 you're worth, or you soon will be because other employers recognize your value in the process in relation to others.

      So what is left? The unseen impacts of the state interfering with the profit and loss test: Unemployment or Price Inflation. You're getting paid more than you should be and creating a potential loss for the goods producer. If the producer cannot raise prices because a similar goods producer is more efficient, That producer will not be able to earn a profit and will go out of business. If the producer can raise prices to stay in business, that's what will happen.

      Delete
    12. Anyone who quotes Dishonest Abe as an economic theory expert is probably a retard themselves. There, I wrote it. Yes, retard! Get over it. Or don't, I really don't care. No way do I allow a pack of intolerant, obnoxious, hypocritical, dangerously ignorant collectivist drones tell me how to express myself.

      And while we are on the subject of free speech. Nigger. Oh my God, I wrote Nigger. The forbidden word that shall never be written, uttered or even thought by white people. Now I've gone and done it, I have broken a politically correct taboo. Just like Schiff did when he referred to mentally retarded people as well, mentally retarded. So what? Never let your enemies determine how you express yourself. That's how they win. There is no need to ever apologize to John Stewart or his audience of smug, clueless, hypocritical, Obama worshiping, Birkenstock wearing, limp wristed, pencil necked, wimped out, ignorant pussies. We need to offend these people more often. They offend and insult us all the time for fun and profit so it seems only fair. Don't get mad, get even. Or better yet, get mad and then get even.

      On the other hand Schiff, being a motor mouthed publicity hound, stupidly walked right in to an obvious trap. He should have known better. He should have had his own film crew there or he should have insisted on an on-show interview with Stewart himself.

      Delete
  2. The old editing excuse. I do not believe for a second that Schiff was aware of the subminimum wage during that interview. He would have simply refereed to the subminimum wage in response to her question. Its existence supports his claim that the minimum wage kills jobs. The labor department says "employment at less than the minimum wage is designed to prevent the loss of employment opportunities for these individuals."

    Subminimum Wage
    http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/subminimumwage.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JW: "I believe Schiff refereed to the subminimum wage in response to her question"

      There, edited it for you

      Delete
  3. Peter, as always, you have taught truth to those determined for ignorance. Keep up the great work!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hasn't Schiff been on the Daily Show before? It's not clear in the piece, but how much of his 4 hour taped interview did he realistically expect to be aired?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes he has, and it was a pretty good segment too. You can watch it here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-9-2009/peter-schiff

      Delete
  5. Ah, yet another self-absorbed, out-of-touch, avaricious venture capitalist contracts a severe case of Athlete's Tongue.

    These neanderthal fiscal conservatives must be extremely limber, as they routinely demonstrate their ability to have both feet lodged in their mouths while simultaneously shoving their heads up their asses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Were you born stupid or did you work at it?

      Delete
    2. He worked on it. Nobody born that stupid could possibly learn to type.

      Delete
    3. "Neanderthals" are people who think government funny money creates wealth for the poor as opposed to being an intentional scheme by the elite to surreptitiously loot society. Even uber-Keynesian Daniel Kuehn seems to know that.

      http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2013/01/poor-kid-was-just-couple-years-too.html?showComment=1359027254446#c4705199555426053009

      Delete
    4. Yeah. Neanderthals. LOL! If we don't believe in The Great God Government running our entire lives as if we were children then yes we're just stoned aged nuts. I mean lets just forget that The Great God government is as old as the Pharaohs. They were not only absolute emperors but were worshiped AS GODS. Today people STILL look at them this way except they worship the institution itself.

      Why in the fucking hell do people STILL believe that a bunch of extremely corrupt bastards who steal our wealth for their benefit are also somehow benevolent benefactors for the poor? Does anybody besides me see an INCREDIBLE amount of cognitive dissonance here?

      It really blows the mind!

      Delete
  6. The Daily Show is entertainment where logic is twisted for the benefit of people who hear only what they want to hear. Keep fighting Peter!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I understand some libertarians' opposition to defamation lawsuits. So, when doing an interview, demand that you be allowed to record the entire interview and ask the interviewer whether or not they will be fair in honest in their presentation which you also must record. When they aren't fair and honest and their presentation, they have breached their agreement with you. You should then have no qualms about suing them for defamation. This probably does not give you a good contractual basis to sue, but it alleviates any libertarian concern about not having a right to your reputation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kind of funny when 'libertarians' now complain that a private company (The Daily Show and Comedy Central) isn't being 'fair and honest'. As Mr. Schiff outlines in his whiny explanation, he voluntarily agreed to the format, no government forced him. A completely private sector transaction is now 'unfair', irony of ironies. Do the same standards of fairness and honesty apply to your discussions of mainstream economists, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Roddis, Mr. Wenzel? How about mentioning, just as a for instance, the impeccable record of keeping 'price inflation' around the announced target of 2% during Mr. Bernanke's tenure at the Federal Reserve? Nowhere to be found on this website. Instead persistent, but even years later yet unrealized, warnings of 'hyperinflation'. Of course, that, according to some 'libertarians', might be driven by an evil government conspiracy. Shadowstats, for example, is a prime example of intellectual unfairness and dishonesty. As Mr. Williams, who is often quoted here in comments, has admitted, he is not doing any analysis but rather just tacks on an arbitrary percentage figure to the BLS numbers.

      And as to intellectual dishonesty, Mr. Schiff has certainly set standards of that himself. Remember the discussion of mismeasurement of 'price inflation'? Mr. Schiff presented an index of necessities which conveniently excluded apparel, a category which has seen dramatic falls in prices. In a YouTube video he then presented his main 'gotcha' which seemed to be an increase in magazine cover prices. However, these days fewer people pay cover price and read online or through heavily discounted subscription. An honest fact, which was not presented. Why can Mr. Schiff himself be unfair and dishonest, but the Daily Show cannot? Reminds me of the bully who can dish it out but runs home crying if others do likewise. Is that worthy of this blog, a leading platform for a libertarian audience?

      Delete
    2. Assuming you're not being sarcastic:

      "Kind of funny when 'libertarians' now complain that a private company (The Daily Show and Comedy Central) isn't being 'fair and honest'."

      Let me guess. You're one of those morons who think that libertarians believe all businesses are perfect and moral right? If so we never said anything like that. Please get your head out of your ass and start thinking please. So there's nothing"ironic" about it.

      "How about mentioning, just as a for instance, the impeccable record of keeping 'price inflation' around the announced target of 2% during Mr. Bernanke's tenure at the Federal Reserve?"

      What country do you live in pal? It's been much higher than 2%. The CPI is a joke.

      This one is mental. Butterfly nets please.

      Delete
  8. For what it's worth, Jon Stewart's brother, Lawrence Leibowitz has been chief operating officer of NYSE Euronext, Inc. (NYSE parent company) since 2010.

    Compensation for 2011

    Salary $750,000
    Bonus $1,200,000
    Restricted stock awards $2,250,003
    All other compensation $383,382
    Total Compensation $4,583,385

    http://www.forbes.com/profile/lawrence-leibowitz/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no way that guy is worth that much. The maximum total compensation should be capped to something reasonable, like at most 10X minimum wage.

      Delete
  9. Next time Peter, be like Lew Rockwell and tell them where to stick it if they ask you for an "interview" (which really means they'll be yellow journalists and lie either by omission or manipulation).

    ReplyDelete
  10. That insufferable twit interviewer pretty much personifies left-liberalism: It's all about "feelings." Better to have half the population starve to death so long as the policy is motivated by the desire to help the poor and downtrodden (or is to hurt the rich for envy's sake? I forget). Remember, these are the people who carried water for Stalin and Mao. Peter is too kind. He should have told the stupid bitch that she's a stupid bitch, and to get lost.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I laughed when I heard Peter Schiff get in trouble during a Daily Show interview. He fell for a trap and he knows it.

    Schiff is an example of a guy who has made money telling it how it is and then making excuses for himself when things go wrong. He should have been more thoughtful about the interview, not given the Daily Show "4 HOURS!!!" of tape to select from and avoided any controversies that at this point in his life he has started... Peter Schiff is not Walter Block! Just another case of hubris and libertarians are once-again just the arrogant and know-it-all "new kids on the block" of American pop culture.

    Whoever his PR guy is should be replaced. The number one rule of PR is controlling the narrative and protecting your client from these tactics (leading questions like the $2 an hour question is a tool to lead the interviewee into an uncomfortable situation which should never have been allowed to be asked).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Did you know that John Maynard Keynes was a venomous anti-Semite who could have given Richard Wagner a run for his money? Me neither. Yet the evidence has been out there for decades. Here are a couple of extracts from his writings, courtesy of Chris Dillow via Clive Davis's Spectator blog:

    [Jews] have in them deep-rooted instincts that are antagonistic and therefore repulsive to the European, and their presence among us is a living example of the insurmountable difficulties that exist in merging race characteristics, in making cats love dogs …

    It is not agreeable to see civilization so under the ugly thumbs of its impure Jews who have all the money and the power and brains.

    If Keynes was an intellectual hero of the Right, rather than the Left, do you think those quotes would be so little known?


    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/8163741/John_Maynard_Keynes_on_repulsive_impure_ugly__Jews/

    ReplyDelete
  13. Schiff is right. They used this for 1. to bash Austrian economics 2. to bash libertarians 3. to bash a leading proponent (Schiff) of 1 & 2 just like Block. And, 4. they want to get rid of the mentally disabled or challenged or whatever. Though I don't know what's Schiff's thinking on abortion, he's not advocating for "women's right to choose" = abortion or "women's health" = abortion; that would be the progressive folks at the Daily Show. They're barbaric enough to think that there are people who aren't worth a dime or lower wages to be part of their society. That's real bigotry; it's just evil.

    As for the PC phrase, intellectually disabled - I don't agree with this. When I think of "intellectually disabled", I think of over educated people that haven't yet applied their education to the real world, like 95% of MSM personnel. I think of folks like Paul Krugman. In fact, if I sat down, and I have, with a retard - yeah, I don't care; I'm not famous - I would find something of value that he/she has to say. As for Krugman, I find nothing of value with his statements of hurricanes and death panels.

    Furthermore, why are we putting people like Schiff and Block on public trial when our own government with our tax dollars blow up brown people and cause wars in impoverished countries? It's just asinine and self-indulgent to make a PC word more important than murderous travesties that happened with our taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Walter Block and Peter Schiff smeared be the edit card in recent days. I understand now perhaps why Ayn Rand had near pathological control issues with her work. Your words in the hands of others without your control are twisted around to mean the precious opposite of what you meant to communicate. Peter Schiff likes having his name out their to get more exposure and therefore potentially more clients for his business. It may come back and bite hi in the ass.

    ReplyDelete