Peter Schiff Calls it Quits

I was very saddened by the announcement, today, that this will be the final month of the Peter Schiff Show.

This show is, by far, the most entertaining libertarian show/podcast in the world. Schiff is the Mike Tyson of the Austro-libertarian movement. He might not always be perfectly in line with Pure Libertarianism, but he's as rabid as they come. Like Tyson, there's almost nobody you'd rather see in a fight (debate). He throws hay-makers and is completely fearless.

Another great thing about Schiff is he actually enjoys talking to people who disagree with him better than people he agrees with. He's openly challenged Nobel laureate, Paul Krugman (Schiff purposely mis-pronounces it "Kruggman") to a debate, several times, to no avail. He regularly invites people on his show that he knows he will have heated arguments with, and I don't recall anyone getting the better of him.

I started listening to Schiff a bit after I had already began learning economics, and I have only minor quibbles with very few of the things he says. I think I was already an Anarchist before I started listening to his show (Schiff is a small government guy). But, his analysis of the housing bubble and financial crisis were indispensable for a lot of Austrians, since Schiff is a finance professional, rather than a bookworm economist. I knew almost nothing about financial markets before listening to his show (I don't know that much now, still, but a lot more than before).

Schiff's perfect blend of personality and wit is a scarce thing in economics/financial media. Besides Murray Rothbard, I can't think of any economist who's more entertaining to listen to speak on arcane subjects.

So, here's to Peter Schiff.  Economist, entrepreneur, goldbug, eater of Keynesian souls.

Thanks for all the time you gave, Peter. I'm sure we can expect many more great things from you.

Reply to Ronald Dixon on subsidized internships

(This reply was posted at the Mn Daily site, about a week ago. Mr. Dixon has yet to respond.)

Ronald, I just wanted to let you know, you're my favorite columnist in the Mn Daily. Probably because you discuss the subjects I am most interested in, and because I strongly disagree with almost everything you write.

Ok, enough with the praises. Let's review.

Your solution to the alleged problem of under employed students, is to have the federal government subsidize interns.

There are many things in your article to take issue with, but I'll *try* not to nitpick too much.

First, where did you get the statistic of 45% for working students? It sounded reasonable when I initially read it. Then I went to see if I could find the post WW2 stats for the students working during college. I didn't find any data on that, but I did find that your number, 45%, as far as I can tell, is way off (according to a quick google search, so correct me if I'm wrong). It's more like 70-80% or students who work.

Second, and much more to the point; don't students have to apply/compete amongst each other for these coveted unpaid internships?

There are limited unpaid internships to be had. Basic economics tells us that, all else being equal, if you offer more for something (in this case interns) more will be supplied. If we are prepared to offer PAID internships, many more students will apply. And, since you aren't proposing that we subsidize the businesses expense of having to babysit many more interns, there will be even more competition for the same scarce internship opportunities.

Another small quibble I must voice, is in regards to your comment on "shrink(ing) the wealth gap". Now, it's my understanding, and, I think it's safe to say, everyone's understanding, that college grads make more money compared to non college grads. Your solution then, would seemingly widen the "wealth gap", if you intend to tax average working people to help future, wealthier, working people make more money. 

(Of course, your reply would be to "tax the uber rich", but that's another can of worms we need not get into.)

Another strange assertion you make, is that "grants are often extremely limited." I'll give you a pass, since you couldn't have read the article which was printed in the same edition as your thought provoking article. According to Blair Emerson's Lawmakers push for Pell Grant changes, 25% of U of Mn, twin cities campus students receive Pell grants.

The article really comes full circle, though, when towards the end you spill the beans and tell us:
"Many colleges and universities, including individual departments at the University of Minnesota, provide this funding."

So, the solution you've suggested already exists, but it isn't alleviating the "problem" because it's provided by the University (where do they get their money?), and not the federal government? 

You want the federal government to "...grant additional funding to colleges ...under the condition that the use the money to provide stipends to ...unpaid internships."

Papa Gov: You want more money? 

U of M: Umm, duh, I can't get enough!

Papa Gov: Here, take this. Oh, but you have to use that for internships.

U of M: Forget it then. I've got internship money up the wazoo (according to Ronald Dixon).


Pushing for a "federal solution" that "may remove the obscurity of these funds" isn't even close to practical, economically or politically. I mean, are you gonna lead a grassroots movement all the way to DC, through congress and all? That's ridiculous. (Although, I'm sure BO would have no problem ordering this from his throne.)

If you want to inform people about funds which already exist, there's about a million better ways to do it (including the school newspaper). That you would even entertain the idea of the federal government removing anything from obscurity is flat out hilarious. My guess is, many problems within the university already stem from a bloated bureaucracy. Involving the most bloated bureaucracy of all, would be a disaster. Actually, it already is. But that's a topic for another day.

My very own Paul Krugman!

I am quite fond of the economist Robert P. Murphy's blog, Free Advice. Anyone who is familiar it would know that Murphy has a passion for exposing the beloved Paul Krugman, a darling of the left, and author of a popular blog over at the NY Times, for the dogmatic statist that he really is.

Well, lucky me (!), in the University of Mn's newspaper, there is a student, Ronald Dixon, who writes a regular column, and he's as statist and Keynesian as they come! But (and again, lucky me), being as young and impressionable as he is, there might be hope for this kid to start thinking straight (unlike Krugman).

So I've decided that instead of fuming over his regurgitated Krugman droppings, I will respond to him, here and at the Mn Daily's site. I'll probably email my responses to Mr. Dixon, as well.

Now, one might think that I am picking on young Ronald, but I don't think its that bad. His bio reads: "I am a rising third-year senior that is studying Political Science and Communication Studies. Apart from writing for the MN Daily, I am also the Head Debate and Speech coach for Maple Grove High School and I volunteer/intern for various causes."

See. That's a much better résumé than I've got. He's not helpless.

I think it will prove fruitful for both of us.

This is only a test.

The intent of this blog is simply to practice the writing and espousing of ideas. I do not expect anyone to read this, but if one might be so unfortunate as to come across High Time Preference, be warned: I don't know what I'm talking about.