Thursday, October 20, 2011

Wenzel on the Peter Schiff Show

The executive producer of the Peter Schiff Show has asked me to be a guest on Peter's show, to discuss my views on Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan. I have accepted the offer. As soon as I have the date and time, I'll post it here. It might be tomorrow.

Should be fun.

UPDATE: It's confirmed, I will be on Peter's show Friday at 10:33 AM.

You will be able to listen here.

46 comments:

  1. Can't wait to hear that debate! Hopefully Peter will put it on YouTube.

    ReplyDelete
  2. YES YES YES...this will be GREAT!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is there a way to listen online in realtime, how about after the fact?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Peter is going to beat the Schiff out of you!:)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Awesome! That will be a great show.

    @ Chris - you can download the show for 24 hours after it airs for free at schiffradio.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. 9-9-9 sucks. Only Ron Paul's 0-0-0 plan is justified. Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  7. with any luck Peter will let Wenzel actuall speak! I am a Peter Schiff fan who listens daily to his radio show. Unfortunately, Peter seems to spend most of the alloted guest interview segments talking over his guests.

    ReplyDelete
  8. haha, look forward to that! ... I doubt it will be a debate as you probably both agree

    ReplyDelete
  9. Man, this should be a good show. I like Peter a lot, but I think that you are on the right side of this argument. Even better, we might actually get to see what you look like (you sneaky little bugger).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Peter has done more for the cause of Austrian Economics in one book than Robert Wenzel will do in his entire lifetime

    ReplyDelete
  11. I emailed them suggesting this several hours ago. They responded saying you would be on tomorrow. This will be great, I hope you change his mind.

    ReplyDelete
  12. At Fetz: its a radio show. (Yes, Peter has a studio video feed but I am guessing Wenzel will be calling in).

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Joseph Fetz

    Usually don't see the guests on Peter Schiff's show, they are generally on the phone I think.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm going to go waaaay out on a limb here and guess that you and Peter will be in complete agreement seeing as he has not actually endorsed Cains' plan but merely laid out his opinion that it would be an improvement(a very minor one to be sure) to the current tax system.

    Looking forward to listening. Also, I second a previous comment here in hopes that Peter bites his tongue a little bit during the interview.

    One more thing, I would like to hear you and/or Peters' take on the constitutionality (or lack-there-of) of the Cain plan. It seems to me that a national sales tax would require an amendment. (not that most people in D.C. give a damn about the Constitution anymore)

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  15. ask him about his extra 9% and the reality it is only a 1.35% increase vs. a full 9% over the already 7.65%.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anons 7:38 and 7:59,

    Yes, I understand that. Honestly, when I listen the show I only get the audio feed. But, I do understand that Peter does have a video feed. I just figured that it is common practice in radio to have a picture of your guest, either on the video feed or on the website.

    Obviously, I was also alluding to the fact that Wenzel values his privacy (which I respect). Basically, it was an attempt at a bad joke with full awareness that it wasn't funny at all.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ Joseph,

    Your last sentence pretty much sums up every comment you've ever made.

    -EPJ Readers

    ReplyDelete
  18. IF Bob knew what was good for him, he'd let Peter talk the whole time...

    Don't mess with the Master son...

    ReplyDelete
  19. I can't believe all of the Schiff slappy's out there.

    Schiff clearly has a thing for Cain and Bob called him out on it. No ones perfect, Including Schiff.

    I like Schiff, he's usually brilliant. But he's simply wrong on this one.

    It's ok to disagree with someone once in awhile. But for some of you to go after Bob on this is silly. He has an opinion and a well thought out one at that. He provides facts to back up his arguments. The same cannot be said to some of the rest of you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anon@916pm-

    JFetz is one of the most intelligent, educated and respectful posters EPJ has. He rarely fails to offer constructive criticism or insightful commentary...unlike anonymous assholes like you. Sign your name if you aren't a coward. Also, he's an autodidact, who has obtained his economic knowledge due to his own perseverance and yearning.

    Along with Lila R, Zach B, Cap'n Danger (and a few others) he has made the comments section of EPJ must read material. Lively discussion here always helps bring out the nuance- hell, if it weren't for us, I doubt Schiff would be debating Wenzel!

    Bob, I hope you and Peter can come to some kind of agreement- I assume both of you are gentlemen who can debate with courtesy. Looking forward to the outcome!!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. I love you both (not in a gay way)!!!!!! Please don't fight!!!!! I do want to hear what Peter has to say about your view that the economy is turning around. Be bold, and if Peter starts talking too much, cut him off.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think Peter's argument will probably be that he likes a tax on consumption more than earnings because it taxes people for taking from our finite resources instead of improving them (by manufacturing) or adding to them by providing a service or labor. They will probably both agree that taxes are way too high which hinders the economy, they may just disagree on how the taxes that remain are apportioned.

    Honestly, I don't really care how they tax, just how much. We all pay the price no matter how the taxes are applied. If it is only as a sales tax, we all pay. If it is income tax, we still all pay, even if we earn too little and it is just indirectly. Because employees of the businesses we all buy from require an increased pay to cover taxes in order to be happy with what they are earning. This cost is passed on to the consumer eventually.

    I happen to agree with Wenzel that new types of taxes are just a vehicle for new tax increases and that reapportioning of taxes, which is what you are doing if it is indeed revenue neutral, is not what we need. We need lower taxes for EVERYONE, and LOWER GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Which is what both Peter Schiff and (I believe) Robert Wenzel have always advocated. But it will be interesting to hear what they have to say.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Peter is obviously very good, but Wenzel is a master at this stuff. Wenzel will win in this debate unless Schiff pulls an O Reilly and just shouts over him the whole time.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @ Anon 9:16...best comment ever.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Anon 9:16

    Touche!

    ...but keep the comments coming Fetz :P

    ReplyDelete
  27. Would love it if you guys could debate China (though I expect 9-9-9 to take up all the time). I'm a fan of Schiff, but he seems way to starry-eyed on the Chinese economy.

    ReplyDelete
  28. no need to debate now. Let's listen to the show...

    ReplyDelete
  29. Wenzel, you sly fox. This was your plan all along! Great marketing stunt.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anon,
    Like water off a ducks back, as they say.

    Fitz, thanks. I appreciate that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Will I be able to listen to this live without paying?

    ReplyDelete
  32. FYI Schiffs site has your name misspelled.


    Peter is having Robert on because Peter can't stand to be told he's wrong...about anything. Peter is a smart guy but has a big ego to go with it. So be careful Robert. He will undoubtedly cut you off and talk over you. I've seen it time and time again.

    ReplyDelete
  33. You can listen for free on the top where it says "Listen to the Live Audio Stream"

    you dont have to pay...its radio lol.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Good.....Schiff put Wenzel on the map

    ReplyDelete
  35. Nice to see the EPJ readers listening to the Schiff show today....they will get to learn something for a change

    ReplyDelete
  36. Why didn't Schiff let Wenzel talk?

    He talked over him the entire time.

    ReplyDelete
  37. That wasn't an interview or a debate. It was Schiff attempting a total blocakde of RW's points.

    I have never heard Schiff on the radio before but I just lost a lot of respect for him.

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Anom 11:25

    Well maybe it would have been different if Schiff actually allowed Wenzel to speak.

    Schiff sounded like a cornered rat who knew his only chance to survive was to keep on talking and not allow Wenzel to make his points.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Here is a simplified version of what I think Robert was trying to say on the show. I'll keep it simple by using a single producer, as well as leaving out interest, and the realities of specific factors of production and non-specific factors.

    Consumers dictate the price of ALL goods through their individual subjective valuations upon consumer goods. In other words, the price of the capital goods made to make a widget are dictated by the clearing price of the widget itself.

    For instance, let's talk about gold mining. The value of the land and labor used to produce gold in that mine comes from the value of the market price of gold. The same is true for the capital used to mine gold, their value comes from the value of the metal itself. To put it another way, if gold's value on the market went to zero, then ceteris paribus the value of the land, labor and factors used to produce gold would ultimately go to zero. Alright, now that that is out of the way, let's get into the nitty gritty.

    Consumers determine the price of a good. A producer can put a widget on the market at any price but it is ultimately the consumer who dictates the clearing price. The general rule is that a producer will keep supply at such a level so as to sell a product at the highest price that the consumers will purchase it, thus clearing the market. He cannot just raise prices to gain more profit, because consumers will ultimately buy fewer goods.

    Let's say there is a new sales tax. The producer has two choices, he can absorb the new tax himself, or he can try to pass it on to the consumer. If he does try to pass it onto the consumer he will sell fewer goods, simple as that. As you can see, the producer is getting screwed either way. Obviously, if he could raise the price without causing less consumption, he would have already done so and that would be the market price. But, what happens next is key.

    Because his revenue will be less, the producer's own demand schedule will shift (assuming he can still stay in business). He will now be bidding lower for the goods that he needs (including rents) and this will continue on down the line throughout the entire structure of production until it ultimately falls upon the original factors- land and labor.

    Key to this understanding is the time-structure of production and value imputation from the consumer. Goods don't just appear, they take time to produce. It all starts with land and labor, then capital comes later, etc. Eventually, you have a consumer good. And, as we know, the value of all the things needed to make that consumer good comes from the value of the consumer good itself. No matter what the tax, whether it be a sales tax, a payroll tax, an income tax, etc, due to the way that value is imputed over the structure of production, the burden of ALL taxes ultimately falls on the original factors of production- land and labor.

    Probably the most important takeaway from this is that since all taxes ultimately fall on the original factors, this represents a burden to production itself. And, since the whole point of production is for consumption (consumption being the key to utility) taxes (of any type) screw us all in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The problem is that Peter didn't actually let Bob speak. With that said, I don't really see where they disagree that much. Bob's original post stated that Schiff was in favor of the 9-9-9 plan. Schiff bluntly stated during the interview that borrowing is more damaging to the economy than taxing, so he would only be in favor of the plan if it dramatically cuts gov't spending so that it doesn't increase the deficit. That statemen alone proves that Schiff does not endorse the 9-9-9 plan.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yes, that is what he was trying to say. And he was wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Yes, Schiff talked over Wenzel, which was annoying. But, in the end, as many of us argued in the comments under Wenzel's original post, Bob wasn't being fair to Schiff's views. Schiff didn't say he liked taxes and government spending. He said that, taxes being a given, sales taxes were preferable to income taxes. Wenzel never addressed this point. He went on pointing out the problems inherent in sales taxes. Schiff knows there are problems with ANY form of taxation. He'd prefer taxes be as low as possible.

    Because Wenzel was attacking a straw man in his post, there wasn't actually much to debate. Schiff and Wenzel pretty much agree on government spending and the level of taxation. I'd like to hear Wenzel finally address the question: Are sales taxes more or less harmful than income taxes, and why?

    Schiff made a good point about sales taxes being "self-correcting." He also noted that income taxes, too, fall on producers, because consumers have less money to spend.

    What say you, Wenzel?

    ReplyDelete
  43. I don't think anyone has posted this link here yet. Bob Murphy has an interesting take:

    http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/10/quick-note-on-consumption-vs.-income-tax.html

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anon 11:45,

    I assume that your comment is directed toward me.

    Which part? Or, is it all wrong? If it is all wrong, then are you (in a roundabout way) telling me that the cost-theory of value and/or the labor theory of value is correct? And, if so, can you qualify that position?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anon 11:45,

    My above analysis assumed a single producer (to aid the layman's understanding) and I eliminated the realities of specific and non-specific factors. Obviously, that is not an ideal economic analysis, then again it was only meant to be a simplification. If you are at all interested in understanding the gaps that I deliberately left in my analysis, I recommend this:
    http://mises.org/media/6458/701-Imputation-of-the-Discounted-Marginal-Value-Product/3

    ReplyDelete