Reason.tv

Peter Schiff Talks to The 1 Percent: "The Economy is About to Implode…We're Not Even Near the Bottom Yet!"

|

"You Got this Occupy Wall Street crowd that wants to have a communist revolution," says investment guru and outspoken defender of free enterprise Peter Schiff, "but hopefully we can have more of a free-market…second American revolution and understand all the pain we're about to endure is because of government. It's not because of capitalism."

Schiff caused a sensation last month when he visited New York's Zuccotti Park and argued with Occupy Wall Street protesters about the causes of and solutions to the Great Recession. In this video, he talks to "the 1 Percent," a group of wealthy individuals who gathered recently in the Bel Air home of Judd Weiss.

Regardless of his audience, Schiff's message in entirely consistent: Cronyism and government policies have distorted the economy and "we're not even near the bottom yet" in terms of the downturn.

About 6 minutes. Shot by Sharif Matar and Tracy Oppenheimer and edited by Oppenheimer.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions of our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to get automatic notification when new material goes live.

To watch other Schiff videos—including almost two hours of his engaging Occupiers in New York!—and all of Reason.tv's Occupy Wall Street (and LA and DC!) videos, go here or click below to watch our full playlist.

"Peter Schiff at Occupy Wall Street: Full Verson, Almost 2 Hours" shot and edited by Anthony Fisher with Nathan Chaffetz.

Advertisement

NEXT: Illinois Congressman Fights Deportation of Gabino Sanchez, "Father and Working Man" Who Has Been In Country 13 Years, Has No Prior Criminal Record

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Shot by Sharif Matar

    Did anyone else immediately think “but it was not shot by deputy”?

  2. Video isn’t working.

    1. Works fine for me.

  3. Schiff has a genius for economic prognostication, and is even better at deflating the hot-air balloon of socialist clap-trap. By the way, it seems to me that the entire OWS thing is winding down anyways – hasn’t been nearly the amount of coverage that it had a month ago.

    1. is schiff hawking gold ? comon…

  4. that….shirt…..

  5. Is there anything more depressing than hearing one of the few people who accurately predicted the recent economic collapse now further predicting that we aren’t even close to the bottom?

    Jesus. Now I know what Reynolds means when he says that Obama turning in to Carter is a best case scenario.

    1. We seem to be turning into Argentina.

      1. I’ve been talking to my parents lately about the late 70’s and how rampant inflation was. I was but a tyke during these days so I don’t remember the cost issues but I do remember the gas lines. Even after Carter Reagan had to keep interest rates up so the economy didn’t fall back down again.

        I don’t think most people are even remotely prepared for the correction we are going to need in order to turn this around.

        1. I graduated from high school in 1981 and remember Carter. He and Reagan are why I became a Republican. Bush I led me to libertarianism, which led me to the Patriot movement. Inflation and gas lines totally sucked, both caused by gov’t. Carter told us to accept a lower standard of living, Reagan said fuck that, we’re America!

          1. Alright, then you won’t mind raising the taxes to the levels that Reagan raised them to when facing a severe budget shortfall? Doesn’t sound very libertarian.

            1. Reagan accepted a few tax hikes as part of a deal that, as usual, fell apart the moment the other side of the aisle got what it wanted. He had not yet learned an important lesson many Republicans have never learned yet: Democrats are the enemy; never try to cut a deal with them, because they’ll betray you every time.

              Key quote from linked article:

              One of the greatest regrets of several members of the generally sound Reagan administration was that in an effort to cut spending significantly, President Reagan went along with some tax hikes sought by Democrats in his first term in office.

              It seemed like a good idea at the time: Supposedly there would be $3 worth of spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.

              But it didn’t work out that way.

              The tax increases were imposed, but the spending cuts failed to materialize. As Reagan later wrote, “The Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts.”

              Naturally, one should also be appropriately skeptical of all our left-wing media’s callbacks to Reagan. Just like when normally atheistic left-wingers start talking about Jesus, you should hang on to your wallet and reach for your gun when former Mondale voters start talking about Reagan.

              1. “The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility,” says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. “They’re on an anti-tax jihad ? one that benefits the prosperous classes.”

                1. “The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility,” says David Stockman, who served as budget director under Reagan. “They’re on an anti-tax jihad ? one that benefits the prosperous classes.”

                  I’m sure you won’t mind reducing spending to Reagan-era levels on an inflation-adjusted basis as well, right, Nicholas?

                  1. Not at all. Let’s start with the military.

                    1. Not at all. Let’s start with the military.

                      Back in 1985, military spending made up 31 percent of federal spending. It makes up less than 20% now if just the DoD is taken into account; approximately 22% if Homeland Security and the entire DoE is included.

                      It’s no problem to start with the military, but if you think it’s going to end there, you’re kidding yourself.

                    2. I don’t think it’s going to end there. But between raising taxes back to Reagan-era levels and getting out of 5 wars, I’m pretty sure we’d be in the black.

                    3. I don’t think it’s going to end there. But between raising taxes back to Reagan-era levels and getting out of 5 wars, I’m pretty sure we’d be in the black.

                      Any mathematical proof for this, or are you just speculating?

          2. …not caused by the city-State (government?)

            1. Well, there’s White Idiot. Nobody’s sure which moron at the insane asylum let him have access to a computer.

        2. Here is the problem. They can’t raise interest rates like Volker did because they have run the debt up so much. If and when interest rates go back to their historic norm the government will never be able to afford the debt service.

          So when the time comes to do something about inflation the way Volker did, they won’t be able to do it without bankrupting the federal government.

          Yeah, we are that fucked.

          1. Exactly. People think the foreclosure mess is bad now, but there are still millions of people who can barely afford the adjustable rate mortgages they currently have. If interest rates start going back to where they need to be in order to steady the economy, the foreclosure issues we have now will be like a fantasy.

            1. …a steadying sort of thing.

              To the money-changers.

              Makes sense to me.

              Where’s my whip?

              ~HayZeus of the band Nazareth

  6. Schiff’s biggest enemy is not the OWS people, per se, it is the educational system that PURPOSELY inculcated them with the loony notion that capitalism sucks and that communism is better, in spite of overwhelming global evidence that the only things shared in centrally-planned societies are misery and oppression.

    1. And hot chicks. A lot of those commie countries had smokin’ hot women.

      Roll Tide!!!!!

      Haha, just kidding. But really, Go Bulldogs!

      1. my wife is a GA girl. My only quarrel with the Dawgs happens on a single Saturday in November.

    2. The gambol lockdown Capitalist agricultural city-State is certainly miserable and oppressive as the gambol lockdown Communist agricultural city-State.

      Officer!

  7. Sad thing is, when the bottom does fall out and we experience stagflation?, Krugman and his gaggle of worshipers will insist that it’s all due to the fact that the stimulus wasn’t 10 trillion dollars and that tax rates aren’t 70%. They’ll stand atop the rubble and say “See! We told you the rich weren’t paying their fair share”!

    1. We told you the rich weren’t paying their fair share”!
      ————————-
      how is that “fair share” bullshit allowed to stand, especially in the face of empirical data that confirms its being a lie?

      1. It’s allowed to stand because most people inherently think that if a person can AFFORD his/her own private jet and grotto full of hookers, he doesn’t DESERVE said jet and hooker grotto. Therefore, that jet must be shared by 300+ million, and the hookers must be passed around like the whores they are! Maybe, and this is a BIG maybe, if most rich people acquired their massive wealth by toiling in the dirt(where most socialists want to take everyone anyway), people would have less issues with them. Of course this ignores the economic realities of dirt toiling, where one can only get enviously rich by finding gold/silver/platinum/Amazonian Hooker colonies by complete accident. In the end, it’s a mystery because trying to understand the mindset of bloodthirsty wealth-envious thugs is a fool’s errand for most sane men.

      2. …Warmonger Eagle must have never split the cost of the vegetable called meat lover’s pizza among friends.

        Why are libertards always demonstrating their psychopathy and lack of empathy?

        1. evenly splitting the cost of a shared purchase is a bit different from apportioning shares on the basis of income. If we split a pizza, how much either of us makes is immaterial.

          1. If “we need government to protect property rights” then there is a cost of protecting property rights, especially of those with more property. Sound fair?

            Probably not to you, since you’re looking for a free lunch.

            1. …gotta primitard.

              1. Please make a note of it.

                1. …to stone tools.

                  Please make note of it.

                  1. Fire. Bone flutes. Teepee. Walking stick.

            2. Stop playing with your bone flutes!

          2. …you pay more.

            If you benefit most from the city-State, you pay more.

            Simple.

            Problem?

            1. The big eaters are already paying more.

              1. The big eaters are sitting at the table and not paying anything at all.

    2. Wall Street will get a bonus for total collapse, too.

  8. Schiff caused a sensation last month when he visited New York’s Zuccotti Park

    He did?
    Who is this “Schiff”?

  9. this is almost unwatchable because of how unrepentantly ignorant these people are.

    1. I’m assuming you’re talking about the second video above where Schiff’s talking to the 99%. The first video has an intelligent, open minded audience.

  10. I generally consider myself a libertarian. But, if the Reason commenters have taught me anything, it’s that libertarians are just as useless as conservatives and liberals. I know plenty of people affiliated with OWS and non of them are hoping for a communist utopia. Peter Schiff is your Kieth Olbermann, I don’t see how listening to this dipshit is ever going to accomplish anything.

    1. Well, what do you suggest?

      1. Well I meet a lot of wrong-thinking people, and in my experience the vast majority of wrong-thinking people are right!

    2. I know plenty of people who are associated with the Oakland Occupy movement and they are all mostly communists, although what they want is certainly not a utopia.

      1. ….with me…

        is a communist.

        Q.E.D.

        1. Or a reactionary?

    3. And they all, every single one of them, can’t wait to create even more incentives for government/bank complex to get even tighter (i.e. give more regulation of banks to government).

      A bunch of deluded, angry communist kids and aging, nostalgic baby boomer communists. That’s Occupy in a nutshell here in Oakland.

    4. Schiff didn’t claim they wanted a utopia. But he is spot on that they are socialists and communists. They (as in the vast majority of OWS protesters) most sincerely want the government to control the means of production in the financial sector.

      1. No, they want to get rid of the corruption in government. Do some research before making claims like this.

        FYI, reading news articles is not research. Full of sensationalism.

        1. No, they want to get rid of the corruption in government.

          No, they want Uncle Sugar to pay off their student loans for them. In other words, they are just as much a prostitute for gub’mint cheese as the banks they proclaim to despise.

    5. Dan|12.1.11 @ 1:11PM|#
      “I generally consider myself a libertarian.”

      I’ll bet you’re the only one who does.

      1. Set your ass straight again.

        Da, tovarisch.

      2. What we need is a purity test for libertarianism, so we can all know whether we are libertarians.

  11. ” Cronyism and government policies have distorted the economy ”

    Anyone who *doesn’t* understand this much at this point is seriously drinking the koolaid from a firehose.

  12. At least Schiff doesn’t try to tell me that as long as the Democrats control the government and we continue to give it ever more power we will all be eating ice cream cake and riding our very own unicorns.

    1. Damn squirrels, that was in response to Dan.

      1. I want ice cream cake… 🙁

  13. I’m starting to think that we really do want Obama to win a second term. Having a Socialist in the White House during the coming collapse will increase the probability of the resultant revolution being a free-market revolution.

    Even if Ron Paul would somehow miraculously win the presidency, he wouldn’t be able to cut anything. He’d have a congress full of big-government vote buyers preventing that.
    Either way, we’re f***ed, why not have Obama take the blame?

    1. I think that will prolong the bullshit. The republicans will stand up and say, “see what happens when their gang is in charge?” Then the pendulum will swing and republicans will take over and continue to fuck things up. Until both parties are held responsible, it makes no difference who’s steering the ship when we hit the iceberg.

      1. Republicans are MEANER. If I were poor, unemployed, and potentially loosing my home, I want Santa Claus…Not Scrouge.

        1. The prison is the agricultural city-State.

          The wardens run it. The liberal democrats only try to reduce the abuse, until they become wardens themselves.

    2. Obama? A socialist? Then what does that make Reagan? Higher taxes under Reagan than under Obama. Obama passed a healthcare bill that lined the pockets of insurance companies, is continuing to allow the Fed to bailout banks to the tune of trillions, is continuing shadow wars in at least 5 countries, etc. What about that says “socialist” to you? Do you even know what that word means?

      1. Point taken. Perhaps I should have said, “crony capitalist with socialist leanings”. Republicans would be “crony capitalists with free-market leanings”.

        My bigger point is that if a Republican is in the WH during the collapse, it will be “proof that capitalism doesn’t work”. If a Democrat is in the WH, that is less likely to be true.

        1. I’m tired of people, who judge communism by what we observed who won’t judge capitalism by what we observe.

          WYSIWYG. Don’t be a KOCHsucker about it.

          1. Where the hell is Barfman?

          2. I observe that people suffered more under communism than capitalism.

      2. whatever -ist you want to ascribe to Obama, it is certainly not capitalist. He wants to raise taxes, but only on those who already shoulder the largest burden. Yes, he supports giving money to banks because any time federal dollars are handed out, federal control goes along for the ride. He was also behind the fin-reg which is a toxin on any sort of positive financial activity.

        Obamacare may mean a temporary uptick for insurance carriers but it ultimately diminishes the quality of American medicine and could well drive private carriers out of business, especially when employers figure out that the “penalty” for not providing coverage to their staffs is less expensive than providing coverage. Two of the five wars appear poised to yield sharia-based govt; how that benefits us is a mystery.

        Under Reagan, tax rates came down and govt regulation was loosened; the result was a two decade boom. Under Obama, regulation has increased, taxes will go up, and unemployment has increased. Under Obama, most things add up to increased central planning, which fits a good many -isms, none of which have had good outcomes for those living under them.

        1. Higher taxes under Reagan than we currently have.

          1. Lower spending under Reagan than we currently have.

            1. As a percentage of GDP, its not much different. But I’d be fine with going back to the percentages seen during Reagan. Start with the military.

              1. As a percentage of GDP, its not much different. But I’d be fine with going back to the percentages seen during Reagan. Start with the military.

                Back in 1985, miltiary spending made up 31% of all federal spending.

                And the “percentage of GDP” is irrelevant. We’re spending 10% in deficits to get a 1-2% growth in GDP. The amount of revenue the government takes in as percentage of GDP is the same as it was 60 years ago, when the marginal rates were a lot higher and the defense budget took up a greater portion of federal spending.

                I realize you have a hard-on for cutting military spending, but the math won’t allow you to limit it to just that. We could cut the DoD budget down to $0 and we’d still have a deficit of around $500 billion.

                1. As a percentage of GDP is absolutely relevant, unless of course it contradicts your belief system in this case, which it clearly does. In fact, government spending as a percentage of GDP is absolutely the MOST relevant metric.

                  1. In fact, government spending as a percentage of GDP is absolutely the MOST relevant metric.

                    Why? Because YOU say so?

                2. In 1988, military spending was 5.8% of GDP. In 2009 it was 4.7%. Cut it.

                  1. I thought GDP was irrelevant.

                    It is, because it shows that the tax rate doesn’t matter.

                  2. As a percentage of GDP is absolutely relevant, unless of course it contradicts your belief system in this case, which it clearly does.

                    You haven’t actually stated how it’s relevant. By your own admission, we spend less on military spending, as a percentage of GDP, than we did in 1988, yet you persist in arguing that cutting military spending will do more to solve the deficit problem than any other. In addition, government revenue as a percentage of GDP is the same as it was 60 years ago, when the tax rate was a lot higher, military spending as a percentage of the budget was over 50%, and overall spending on an inflation-adjusted basis was over 400% lower than it is today. So obviously there are more significant factors than the tax rate at work here. The math clearly isn’t on your side.

                    As for cherry-picking, it’s interesting to watch you ignore the fact that over half of all federal spending is on entitlement programs–Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment. Why not start there, or make dollar-for-dollar cuts in those programs along with military spending?

                3. “The amount of revenue the government takes in as percentage of GDP is the same as it was 60 years ago, when the marginal rates were a lot higher and the defense budget took up a greater portion of federal spending.”

                  I thought GDP was irrelevant.

      3. Reagan was not completely not a socialist. He was a statist, and I don’t think of him much differently than Obama.

        1. …so what’s your point, Colonel Bovine?

          1. ..still refuses to live the Homo Habilis life?

            1. Gambol Lockdown.

              Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?

              1. to live the shakbrah life.

                You’ve been free to gambol your whole existence.

              2. Only if you hang out with the Tauregs or move to Tierra del Fuego.

  14. Woeful ignorance displayed by the occupiers re: economics.

  15. It’s hard to see how Welch and Gillespie can be so upbeat in their book.

    1. See my response below.

  16. I’d vote for Peter Schiff over Ron Paul, and I like a lot of what Schiff has said over the past 5 years…

    I think he’s overstating the case if he said, “‘We’re not even near the bottom yet’ in terms of the downturn.”

    Inflation may rear it’s ugly head, but the real problem with our economic growth has been a function of all those dead assets out there.

    The regulation we’ve heaped on the banks and financial entities has made things a lot worse and take a lot longer than it should have been, but eventually, as more and more people get foreclosed on, for instance, and the banks’ balance sheets beef up again, we will see more growth. It’s just gonna take a while to work through all that misinvestment.

    One of the great things about capitalism is that it can withstand a tremendous amount of government stupidity by way of regulation, fiscal mismanagement, easy money, etc. and keep on ticking! There’s no doubt all of that is making our economy worse than it would be otherwise, but even blatant stupidity in Congress, the White House, by regulators and at the Fed–can’t stop capitalist economies from growing forever.

    As stupid as the government really is, there’s no need to pretend it’s more powerful than it really is.

    1. I hope you’re right.

    2. Capitalism can’t survive without city-Statist aggression.

      1. “The Devil and the Priest can’t exists if one goes away”

    3. At the beginning of the Clinton administration, people like James Dale Davidson and James Grant were making a lot of sober sounding arguments that we were in big trouble because of debt. It looks to me like we were saved by the internet revolution. Mabe nanotech, EEstore’s ultracapacitors or something (cold fusion?) will save us again.

      One thing that is undeniable is that government debt has gotten a lot worse since then. A lot of people have seen scary looking debt numbers not cause a collapse before, so they assume they will never cause one. The great personel financial writer Andrew Tobias (before he became a democratic hack) once said something to the effect that the debt and deficits are only a problem if we stop worrying about them.

  17. The inherent mean-spirit of conservatives/libertarians will probably be the downfall of this country.

    We should have bailed out the SUB-PRIME borrower by simply converting any sub-prime product into a 30/40year fixed at the TEASER rate offered by the LENDER.

    The TEASER rate is what was used to approve the borrower. Had we done this, real estate would not have dropped as it did and many many many jobs could have been saved.

    But the IDEA of unregulated free markets is much more important to preserve (unless you’re one of the people being thrown out of your home).

    1. And the younger people, just getting started in their lives and careers, and no longer having access to half-million dollar home loans can go live in tents.

      Unintended consequences, how do they fucking work?

      1. Bullshit!

        Back in the 90’s younger people all around me getting stared in their lives and careers didn’t move into tents.

        In fact, even today, young people are paying CRAZY rents and buying homes that I wouldn’t even buy and I make twice as much as they do.

        And remember, in your precious FREE MARKET, employees will demand higher salaries when the COST of goods show up…HA HA HA HA HA

        1. young people are paying CRAZY rents and buying homes that I wouldn’t even buy and I make twice as much as they do.
          —————————
          re-read your own words. These people are CHOOSING to pay crazy rents and they are CHOOSING to buy homes making half what you do. What part of that sounds rational and what part demands subsidy from teh rest of us?

          In the 90s, people started their careers in places where jobs existed, not demanding to live in cool hipster cities they can barely afford. They earned degrees in marketable fields, often after taking unpaid internships that they parlayed into work.

          1. …to pay rent to the capitalist rent-seekers when the city-State enforces gambol lockdown against Non-State society lifeways.

        2. The interest rate isn’t the problem at all, it’s the principle value of the asset. As long as FNM and FRE, and govt agencies push the mortgage industry to advertise homes as an investment schtick, home values are going to be too inflated for a lot of people to afford. IOW, using one set of regulations to offset another set of regulations isn’t going to fix this problem.

    2. Strawman,
      Jesus H. Christ in a handbag. What the fuck part of “they couldn’t afford the mortgage” do you not get?!?! It wouldn’t have mattered if the banks reset rates to negative the rest rate. The houses weren’t worth what they’d paid and they couldn’t afford the payments!

      1. If you look @ history, the foreclosures began after the 1st year re-adjustments of ARMS.

        If you don’t have a job and no way to pay for your home, I’m afraid that there’s nothing anyone can do…I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THESE PEOPLE.

      2. The real negative thing about my idea is embedded in your message. People would be STUCK in houses that are not worth what they paid. TOO BAD. I know that this has a negative impact on FREE MARKET as mobility is important…but what can you do.

        If the BANK approved these people for a monthly payment at a TEASER RATE…THE BANK should EAT IT!!! PERIOD.

        And, as for people that can afford to pay for a house “THAT’s not worth paying for”, they can strategically default and face the consequences of doing so…which is not the “walk in the park” some people make it out to be. Besides, by the time the Bank takes the property (2years lately), the strategic defaulter usually recovers their loses.

    3. We should have bailed out the SUB-PRIME borrower by simply converting any sub-prime product into a 30/40year fixed at the TEASER rate offered by the LENDER.

      What about those of us who have a good credit rating and are/were not SUB-PRIME borrowers, and are paying our loans? Do we get the lower rate too? Or is this reward only for people who made bad decisions in life?

      But the IDEA of unregulated free markets is much more important to preserve (unless you’re one of the people being thrown out of your home).

      The people being thrown out of their homes are helping market conditions so that those stuck renting can actually afford to buy now. Why do you hate renters so much? Are you that mean-spirited?

      1. Those of you with good credit rating and are not Sub-prime borrowers DON’T NEED A BAIL-OUT.

        As far as the people being thrown out your their homes in the good faith of helping the market conditions…well, NAL, ask yourself, would you be ok moving in with your mother-in-law with your family so that the FREE MARKET moves on? I know you are OK if this happens to someone else. My question is: is this ok if it happened to you?

        1. My question is: is this ok if it happened to you?

          Yes. I’m not a selfish asshole. Next question.

          1. That’s bullshit. It’s like playing poker online with fake money or trading stocks on paper. You won’t know until you are in the situation how you will feel or behave.

            1. Nope. You’re just an asshole. I actually love my family.

          2. And by-the-way, Ayn Rand said YES to the same question concerning Public Health Care. And, when she came down with small-cell lung cancer, she worked medicare under the name Ann Connor.

            1. Oh noes, she utilized a system she was forced to pay for and which drove out other options. That bitch.

              1. I haven’t been to the doctor in over a decade and have never used my health insurance, but if we get public healthcare I’m going every time I get a runny nose.

                1. We happily treat libertard malingerers too.

            2. AYN RAAAANNNNNNDDD

              Drink up, you mean-spirited capitalist pigdogs.

        2. Those of you with good credit rating and are not Sub-prime borrowers DON’T NEED A BAIL-OUT.

          But you want me to subsidize, with my tax dollars, people who don’t exercise the same discretion as myself?

          Go fuck yourself.

          1. +10

        3. I would not let it happen to me. I am EXTREMELY vigilant on this point. I purchased a home which was below our means even if either my wife or I lost our job.

          I had 20% downpayment and additional savings to live for 6 months at the time of my home purchase (now it’s well over 2 years worth) in the case that we BOTH lost (lose) our jobs.

          Not everyone has the willpower to live like we do, but those that don’t shouldn’t ask for bailouts.

        4. Let’s parse this:
          “well, NAL, ask yourself, would you be ok moving in with your mother-in-law with your family so that the FREE MARKET moves on?”

          What is really being asked is:
          ‘Is it OK to steal other’s money so I don’t have to (the HORROR!) move in with relatives?’

          Well, asshole, no, it’s not OK to steal so you and other assholes get to live where you please.
          Is that clear?

  18. What’s everybody else planning for their post-econo-apocalypse Road Warrior rides?

    I’m thinking of a dump truck, maybe with snow plow attachment…

    either that or a Ford Raptor with run-flats or a set of tracks.

    1. What’s everybody else planning for their post-econo-apocalypse Road Warrior rides?

      Got it already:

      Toyota FJ Cruiser. Off-road dream machine, plus its bog-standard Toyota Tacoma under the hood, so repair and parts will be everywhere.

      1. A stack of old paper playboys and you’ll blast 3 days longer.

    2. A horse. Just need grass and water.

  19. Peter Schiff for president!?

  20. this is hard to watch…the people on the street are so ignorant 🙁 Its the same thing I say when I people watch at any public place…these people vote. Even Rome fell…and here we go 🙁

    1. Typical #OWS is as city-Statist as the typical Fibertard.

      Observing #OWS and Fibertards comment on #Reason confirms one reflection:

      We’re already living in an Idiocracy, scro’.

      1. Shut the fuck up, Godesky.

  21. For background on some hilarity at the event, and to see all the pictures, check out my blog article on it:

    http://hustlebear.com/2011/11/…..and-video/

  22. There were some nice looking women there. Money, the ultimate aphrodisiac.

  23. The girl at 4:33 seems “interested” in him. I’m jealous and angry.

  24. Muriel is an effortlessly sexy, natural beauty who hails from Argentina.

    With her calm and easy going personality Muriel makes the perfect Hegre model ? well that and the fact that she simply oozes sensuality. And with her lush figure, long dark hair and Latina good looks it is easy to see why!

    Muriel works for a large pharmaceutical company but when she isn’t working she likes to have fun. And lots of it. A happy and carefree girl Muriel likes nothing better than relaxing with good friends and a nice cold beer!

    All of this and Muriel is bi-sexual too. Now there’s a thought that is too, too hot!

    Super sexy and fun to be with, Muriel is set to bring a lot of happiness to Hegre-Art members!

  25. I wish Reason would make up its mind whether or not it’s supporting OWS or not.

    Like 4-5 pieces supporting it, then ones like this that rightfully points out that they are dumbasses who blame capitalism when they should be blaming government.

    1. Thus #OWS is getting to the source of the problem.

      Government is merely middle management for Wall Street.

      1. The stupid is thick here. Almost solid.

    2. JeremyR|12.1.11 @ 6:38PM|#
      “I wish Reason would make up its mind whether or not it’s supporting OWS or not.”

      Why?
      AFAICT, O(X) doesn’t have a point to support or otherwise; it’s unfocused anger, which is pretty much what should be expected when “other peoples’ money” runs out; see the Euro-tards griping about reality (MSM: “austerity”).
      If it were focused on the government programs that caused the problem, I’d back it.
      Regardless, their freedom to spout whatever can’t be denied, and the cops’ heavy-handedness sure deserves condemnation.

  26. Exactly, reason supports those people’s rights; not what they’re saying.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.