1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/8634/who-won-world-war-two/

Who won World War Two!?!?

September 27, 2008 by

Here is the real debate that should have taken place in Oxford, MS. The money quote is towards the end.

See also: Interview with Peter Schiff

{ 24 comments }

Matt R.L. September 27, 2008 at 11:04 pm

Someone put a muzzle on that moron. Who won World War Two? The Soviet Union. What’s your point?

Haas September 27, 2008 at 11:38 pm

Now i know why you say put a muzzle on him hes a bloody rabid dog

Justin September 28, 2008 at 12:19 am

Good grief, what a mess. Leeb’s understanding of the economy is so severely flawed that debating him is pointless. Like trying to argue calculus with someone who thinks that 2 + 2 = 7. Credit to Schiff for keeping the message clear despite Leeb’s incoherent, inflammatory remarks.

David C September 28, 2008 at 12:23 am

This is a classic. The scroll on the bottom said the mint can’t keep up with the supply of gold. The add on the end, was a real-estate add (one who specializes in leverage and bubbles non the less). The guy in the debate said we needed the 700B bailout to keep the government from controlling our banks. The writing is on the wall, you can’t make this stuff up.

Nate September 28, 2008 at 1:11 am

I didn’t realize Dwight Shrute was an economic commentator.

Anon September 28, 2008 at 5:19 am

And who won the Vietnam War?

Inquisitor September 28, 2008 at 8:13 am

I like how he asks “who says housing prices are higher than they should be?” Well, considering it’s a bubble… what a bunch of morons.

Krazy Kaju September 28, 2008 at 9:14 am

Wow, this guy is a tool. All that I hear is Schiff trying to say something and this guy, apparently high on helium, interrupting him every two seconds.

a Chinese student September 28, 2008 at 9:37 am

I wonder why Mises institution doesn’t use its influence to help senator Ron Paul in the coming 2008 presidential election?
Ron Paul strongly supports the economic, political veiws of Austrian school. He has always advocated shuting down Federal Reserve, pushing free market policy and limiting government power. It is the best chance to achieve those goals if Ron Paul become the president. As long as everyone acts, there is a hope.

Adam Twardowski September 28, 2008 at 10:54 am

So many people today are desperate to “do something” about this crisis; the gentleman was completely right in saying that the only effective solution to this crisis is a culture-wide realization that we borrow and consume too much and produce and save too little. It’s as simple as that, and no amount of dollars thrown at failing firms will do that.

Bill September 28, 2008 at 11:46 am

WW2 was a war between two competing and aggressive ideologies:Fascism and Communism. Communism won this battle but now the war. The Fascist principals used by Mussolini have outlived their inventors. Those principals: Large government spending, huge government deficits, socialize failures and privatize profits among friends and tax the hell out of enemies.

Bruce Koerber September 28, 2008 at 11:56 am

It is a shame that CNN provides a platform with the intention (perhaps) to give information to its viewers but fails to set guidelines.
The interviewers are there for what reason?
If CNN had any professionalism it would have made it clear that each guest would be allowed to answer the question posed and if these rules of conduct are violated the next question goes again to the guest acting civil.

Billott September 28, 2008 at 11:56 am

The louder more pushy believe in Barney Frank and the others said real incomes have gone down but never explains why? They know the answer. The inflation caused by the Fed people with lower than average incomes have not had their incomes kept up with inflation.

josh m September 28, 2008 at 1:46 pm

As much as it makes me sick to say it, I think the idiot got the upper hand in nearly all the exchanges. Peter needs to take the floor and form solid rebuttals, not try to interject with what wind up sounding like weak free-market sound bites. As difficult as that is, I think there were missed opportunities. At 8:19, for example, he makes what could be a great intro to explaining that it’s not the market that ‘failed’, but fails to follow up and winds up sounding desperate instead. An unenlightened viewer should NOT be able to walk away from a segment like that still with the notion that what’s going on is like some natural disaster that just came out of nowhere.

Brian Macker September 28, 2008 at 1:47 pm

“Leeb’s understanding of the economy is so severely flawed that debating him is pointless.”

Yeah, and if you are invested with him the smart thing to do is to go elsewhere.

I betcha his fund is highly dependent on the bailout happening. I betcha he isn’t aware this is a classical boom driven by a monetary inflation and that we are now beginning to move into the down phase. Which can be postponed only at the cost of very high nflation or a worse crack up later.

Just like 2001 was a down phase that was interfered with only to make the matter worse now.

C. Evans September 28, 2008 at 3:13 pm

I agree with josh m to some extent. I do think that Leeb had the upper hand in the exchanges, but not because Leeb says anything correct. His argument is more emotion than reason, but such histrionics sell well on cable TV. Moreover, good free market arguments require a degree of patience from the audience, and even more important, an openness to receive such information, a point Robert Higgs has made in his lectures on Crisis and Liberty. Given that most Americans would rather live as slaves to the State, making arguments for freedom in general, and free markets in particular, is always challenging. Like Prof. Higgs, I’m not sure how we free people from their own mental and emotional devotion to the State nor am I sure that they even want to give up this delusion. Nevertheless, we should continue to advocate liberty whenever we get the chance, even if the venue is biased against us.

Pablo Escobar September 28, 2008 at 10:47 pm

In the long-term, I don’t think there is much that reverse the institutional growth of government power. The odds are stacked against libertarians, in almost every possible way.

The people will not suddenly “wake up”. And efforts to spread sound economic knowledge will not succeed. There’s a sucker born every day, and ideas that have been shown to be false (e.g. protectionism) continue to enjoy widespread support.

America’s 300 year experiment with individual liberty may come to an end by the end of this century.

jbrett9001 September 28, 2008 at 11:20 pm

This looks like yet another one of these Peter Schiff interviews that we’ll post again two years from now and revel at how right Schiff was.

Hat’s off to Schiff, by the way, for keeping things as civil as could be expected.

J Cortez September 29, 2008 at 12:17 am

That clip is why I get most of my news from internet sources. It’s also the reason why I try to watch as little cable news as possible. It is, in my opinion, an example for what passes as debate in the news nowadays. On the rare occasion you actually have someone on that knows what they’re talking about and you also have some total lunatic making non-sensical emotional statements.

Is it just me or has pretty much all reporting since around 1999-2000 been terrible? Regardless of whether its sports, politics, international, entertainment or finance, it is almost always unwatchable. Has it always been this bad? Am I diluting myself in thinking news in decades past was better?

On air good manners for guest and commentator are gone. Reporters that ask pertinent and intelligent questions are non-existent. Complicated problems are for some reason expected to be distilled into 30 second sound bites. The screen is filled with all sorts of stupid logos and graphics that tend to have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I can’t stand it. I’m only 30 and I feel like I am complaining like some crabby 90 year old. Please tell me I’m not the only one that feels this way.

Bobcat September 29, 2008 at 10:12 am

The Barron’s article refered to, what does it say?

C. Evans September 29, 2008 at 12:46 pm

J Cortez wrote “I can’t stand it. I’m only 30 and I feel like I am complaining like some crabby 90 year old. Please tell me I’m not the only one that feels this way.”

I’m 31 and “I feel your pain.”

Ball September 30, 2008 at 3:58 pm

YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT BARRONS! AAARRRG!

Pathetic. We ought to challenge the Chicago school on the bailout plan. No doubt they’re for it.

chris October 19, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Leeb made so many strawman arguments thats its not even funny.
like when he was asked to look at Zimbabwe and how printing money hurt the economy, instead of debating that, he charges Schiff with bush bashing and goes on the create the argument that bush is not Mugabe, which had nothing to do with the original question.
and the ww2 question was also a huge straw man argument.
plus the fact that he never let Schiff talk without interrupting and he never made a clear point, id say he lost the argument for the bailout.

paul November 25, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Nice to see some intelligent comments here in contrast to the mean and childish youtube namecalling.
The issue I have with libertarianism is that you can get caught up in the excitement of being contrarian (and being theoretically right.) Always be weary of believing your own BS.
Regarding Leeb and Schiff: It’s my understanding that despite their ideological differences, they both advocate putting your hard earned money in the same places: gold, energy, and other commodities. And don’t put it all in the US.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: