His suggestions from Bull Move in Bear Markets:

“We must stop discouraging savings though [sic] inflation, punishing work through taxation, stifling growth through regulation, and start providing an environment where businesses can be creative and flourish….Ideally this would included [sic] dismantling entire departments (such as Education, Transportation, Housing, Energy, Commerce, Homeland Security, and Agriculture); closing agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA); firing other useless government employees such as statisticians and economists; eliminating many misguided social programs and means testing; and eventually abolishing all entitlements, especially Social Security.”

The entire last section of the book is about his belief that free markets automatically avoid/solve pretty much every problem. It’s like he’s never gotten past Econ 101 to learn the definition of “externality.”

In any scenario in which the production of a good or service results in either a negative or positive externality, free markets fail (in the sense that they result in an inefficient allocation of resources). That’s the case with healthcare, the environment, education, and countless other scenarios.

The guy has a lot of valid points. He points out several things that are very real problems. He makes an intelligent case that we (both as a nation and as individuals) would do well to cut our spending. And his tips for individuals to save money are great.

But I couldn’t disagree more strongly with his political agenda.

1. He doesn’t provide the 8th grade level vocabulary and zealotry that the average American understands and follows. It’s kind of that Dennis Miller effect. Remember when Miller tried to commentary on Football? His comments were great but it flew over the head of the average American sports fan. These are the people voting. If Schiff wants to win, he is going to have to speak on their level with their vocabulary. I just hope for our sake he realizes that early.

2. He will need to pretend like the “issues” of today are really important and get behind the hysteria. People care about abortion, healthcare, and education. They don’t think about macroeconomics, GDP, inflation, and the collapse of the USD. Even though they are the real issues. He will need to do the dog and pony show long enough to distract the foolish then get into office and deal with real issues. I figure he could go in barely vote and satisfy the health care and war voters.

3. His message is to negative for the American voter. He can do the doom and gloom but he needs to tie it up in a big red bow and leave the listeners thinking he not only understands the problem but look how promising and wonderful his solution.

With these three, I think he will be set. Pick up a cloak and dagger Peter. It’s time to go to the ball.

I believe he predictions are bold based off his beliefs with studying Austrian Economics. He also is a strong believer in the constitution, which most of our politicians have a total disregard for. I follow his Vlog weekly and suggest everyone finding more about him and Ron Paul.

Great Post!

I would say that he would be a breath of fresh air in the Senate, but I wonder if his confidence comes from all the facts continuing to point towards his conclusion, or if it’s intellectual rigidity. However, the great thing is that he should be able to shine a light on the hypocrisy and ineptitude of the senators and congressman who wouldn’t know the difference between a CDO and ODB (Wu Tang, of course).

Anyway, he’s saying the right things – we shouldn’t be spending money we don’t have; minimal government, allow free markets to work, we wasted billions/trillions on these bailouts, etc. These are all things I’ve known and been saying for years. So, we’re aligned. I just don’t know if an outsider can come in and break the mold of business as usual with candidates, special interests and the fear of/blame toward capitalism that the current administration has fostered.