Election 2012

Peter Schiff Goes Undercover at DNC, Pushes Popular Ban on Corporate Profits


Author, investment guru, and radio show host Peter Schiff goes undercover at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte to gauge support for a fictional ban on corporate profits.

From the original writeup:

Posing as an anti-business crusader, Peter Schiff found a number of DNC delegates and attendees who support explicitly outlawing profitability. We deliberately avoided speaking with the occupy protestors camping outside in tents to get a more "mainstream" Democratic perspective!

Listen to The Peter Schiff show live and free.
Weekdays 10am to noon ET on http://SchiffRadio.com

Reason TV followed Schiff as he talked to Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York last October. Take a long look at that.

NEXT: Saif al-Islam Qaddafi Trial May be Delayed for Interrogation of Libya Ex-Spy Chief

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. i luvs me sum wild bill 11!!11!!!1!11!

    1. You’re looking for dick in the wrong place, o3.

      1. Wait, I don’t know why I thought Clinton’s first name was Richard. But I did. Not sure why. Sorry about that, Reason.

        1. Dammit, I made this same mistake in middle school. Accidentally called him “Slick Dick”.

  2. Doom

  3. “I will support anything my president wants to do”

    Bootlicking at its finest!

    1. That is not boot licking That is beyond that. That is cult following. When obama says to kill the infidel, I will be ready. WTF?

      1. C’mon! He’s black! You gotta support him, or else you’re racist!

        1. If the only choices are to support Obama’s clown school antics or be a racist, than hand me a fucking hood and a cross to burn.

    2. “My President would never want to ban corporate profits because he’s not a socialist, duh!”

  4. “There should be negative profits!”
    “Well, I wouldn’t go that far!”

    Man, oh man! Peter Schiff, the ultimate troll!!

    1. Higher-hanging fruit is unfair to the disabled and poor.

      1. +1

  5. Entrapment!

  6. Peter, don’t give these fucking authoritarians any ideas.

  7. I think Peter Schiff might be the only billionaire I like. Hasn’t frittered his wealth away propping up useless foundations and actually has interesting things to say.

    1. I don’t think he is a billionaire.

  8. This doesn’t surprise me. My father used to sit me on his knee and tell me how capitalism was a system where if you have money you can make money, but otherwise you remain poor. He envisioned a fairer system where no one was allowed to make more than, say, a million dollars, and this 100% tax on excessive income could be used to guarantee everyone a minimum standard of living. It sounds good on an emotional level, but once basic principles of economics and incentives are applied, it completely falls apart.

    1. Call me a left-leaning libertarian, but my only problem with that plan (besides some pretty serious bracket creep when a loaf of bread costs a hundred thou) is that do you seriously trust your government to properly redistribute that 100% tax?

      1. well, and it breaks the moral grounds for a free market (freedom of choice).

        …And your father was right, making money from money is the point of capitalism, to be distinguished from the point of free markets (exchanging your natural talents).

        1. He thinks that making money from money is a guarantee, which in a free market it is not.

          1. all my point is that in capitalism, that making money from money is the IDEAL. In the free market philosophy, that is one possible way to prosperity, and not necessarily the best.

            1. Why isn’t it the best? Creating wealth benefits everyone.

              1. because everyone has different strengths that they bring to the table? And making money from money is not ‘creating wealth’; that is the keynesian mistake. It only creates wealth if the process of making money from money correctly identifies strengths and weaknesses in the economic structure, which it will do not absolutely, but, *more often than not* in a free market populated by at least some non-idiots.

                1. but I do not like making this pragmatic argument, even if everyone were an idiot, we should still have a free market, and we would deserve the collapse we would get.

                2. And making money from money is not ‘creating wealth’

                  How is it not? Earning interest off bank deposits (potentially) creates wealth by allowing the bank to have money to loan to a business that (potentially) will use it to create wealth.

                  Or that money could be invested directly.

                  That’s what capitalism is all about. You invest capital into a (potentially) wealth creating enterprise, and (potentially) make money with money.

                  1. Exactly. Capitalism is a very much normative position that says that’s what people SHOULD do, because somehow magically that activity makes society better.

                    Free markets say that you can do that if you want to. There are other things that you can spend your capital on. You could, for example, choose to give it to a homeless person. Or you could choose to make less money, and spend it taking vacations. Or whatever.

                    The Free market position is that, you should take your capital and do whatever you want with it. Or, spend time doing things besides making capital. Or whatever. it’s all good.

        2. well, and it breaks the moral grounds for a free market (freedom of choice).

          Plus we would all starve to death.

          For example let us suppose you are a farmer. What would motivate you to grow more food then you need if selling your surplus offered you no benefit?

          Without a benefit you simply would not do it. You would only grow what you and your family need.

          Everyone else would have to the same as there would be no farmers growing a surplus. Also all the equipment you need to run your farm would not be made. Why would anyone ever make a surplus of that equipment if they could not sell it for a profit.

          I am kind of upset you do not understand this. I think the democrats are not the only group with a few idiots in it.

          1. What would motivate you to grow more food then you need if selling your surplus offered you no benefit?

            The government goon with a gun who will murder you if you don’t do what’s best for your comrades.

            1. The government goon with a gun who will murder you if you don’t do what’s best for your comrades.

              Good point. 100% tax would guarantee that without coercive incentives the government would not collect one penny from it.

              1. I doubt said goon would get very far in, say, Montana when cowboys refused to round up their cattle in the midst of a storm just so Top.Men. in Washington and D.C. could have $65 steaks at Capitol Grille.

              2. You seem to have missed the original point.

                It’s not a 100% tax across the board. It’s a 100% tax on excessive income.

                The farmer can still sell his crops and take a profit. It’s only when his profits exceed some arbitrary point that the 100% tax kicks in. After that he’s supposed to keep producing for the good of the collective, while his profits are taxed away to be given to the poor.

                We’re all in this together, you know.

                Rugged individualism will never work because no one cooperates or works together without being coerced. At least that’s how these people feel.

          2. this is wrong. You are right you wouldn’t grow more food than you need, but then the market would kick in and someone else would grow that food.

            1. With excessive profits punishable by a 100% tax, market signals will be effectively destroyed.

              1. that is nonsense, and you know it. There are market signals even in North Korea, no matter how much the totalitarians there try to keep it down.

                1. Sure they exist in North Korea, but do they do any good? I think not.
                  That’s what “effectively destroyed” means.

                2. There are market signals even in North Korea

                  People starve to death in North Korea.

                  When market signals are so weak that people are starving to death I am pretty sure the totalitarians have kept it down.

                  You have proven my point with your example.

                3. A 100% tax on excess profits is a really strong market signal to stop wasting your efforts on doing anything which produces even the slightest whiff of excess profits. You will barter, hit the black market, stash your excess for better times, take long long vacations, or do any number of things to avoid working for free.

                  The market never sleeps.

            2. Uh, you DO know the market is made up of people, right? And if no one has an incentive to produce more than they can eat, no one in the market will produce surplus food.

      2. but my only problem with that plan is that do you seriously trust your government to properly redistribute that 100% tax?


        Only problem?

        How about the problem that if you had a 100% tax on all profits no one would make profits…in fact hardly anything would be made at all as there would be zero incentive to do so.

        1. The idea is a 100% tax on all income over some arbitrary amount, like a million dollars.

          I agree with you in that it eliminates incentives.

          Say you own a business and by June you’ve reached your million dollar cap. What’s to stop you from laying everyone off until January? I mean, there’s no point if you’re not allowed to keep the profits, right?

          What happens to your workers? What about the wealth you would have produced for society? Now society as a whole is poorer since you now only produce half of what you did before.

          But lefties do not comprehend this. It just plain does not compute. They have an emotional reaction to “profits” and “rich people” and all thought processes cease as the lizard brain takes over.

          1. That’s already happening in France. The so-call 49 person corporation. You’ll see a whole lot corporation with just 49 employee. If they need an employee, another corporation will be created. These corporation WILL NOT go to that magical 50 employee at which time a whole tons of government regulation kicks in. Despite the headache and paperworks involved in creating a corporation in France, it’s still preferable than to have 50 employees.

          2. because if you lay everyone off till january and stop your business, you piss off your clients?

            I do think it fucks with incentives and isn’t a good thing. But it’s really not horrifyingly bad.

            Again, I think it’s WRONG, as in morally wrong, but my real point is that we shouldn’t be libertarians from a pragmatic point of view.

            1. because if you lay everyone off till january and stop your business, you piss off your clients?

              So what?
              They can direct their anger at the people who are confiscating all my profits and robbing my incentive to work.

              my real point is that we shouldn’t be libertarians from a pragmatic point of view.

              From a purely pragmatic point of view you might as well be a totalitarian.
              Accomplish everything by force. Who needs economic incentives when you or your family will be killed if you don’t do what you’re told?

            2. People won’t work at full speed for half the year and zero speed for the rest. Their customers would find another source. They will pace themselves, work at half speed for the full year, tell excess customers to go away and find some one else.

  9. Go ask a Democrat you know what Schiff asked democrats at the convention.

    My bet is the vast majority will tell you no they do not think corporate profits should be banned.

    Schiff probably interviewed a couple hundred people…and only showed us the dipshits.

    The video is funny….but probably not accurate.

    1. i actually know plenty of people like this. But then again i live in california

      1. I am not saying they do not exist. See yonemoto’s comments above.

        I am saying that they are not the core majority of the Democrats.

        Another possibility is that DNC conventions attract the biggest idiots of the party.

        The smart ones probably have jobs.

        1. I’ll bet you if you’d get over 50% yes if you polled dems with the following question: “Do you believe there should be a maxiumum income level for corporations”

          That would be fun. I’ll start asking people that randomly and see what i get. I live in CA so every person I encounter is a democrat.

        2. I think you need to read my argument more carefully.

          1. (and sarcasmic’s hypothetical, too)

          2. I think you need to read my argument more carefully.

            You are either insane or a sockpuppet.

            Seriously you used North Korea as an example of how intensives in markets can’t be kept down by government taxation of profits.

            You cannot be more fucked up and confused about how markets work then that.

            1. Way to make some strawmen.

              Of course North Korea isn’t a free market economy. All I said was, there are still markets operating in North Korea, and that it is impossible for governments to completely suppress markets. Is this a good thing? Yes. Is North Korea a good thing? No.

              1. You are absolutely right. Markets exist as much as gravity, whether the medium of exchange is money or food or not being sent to the gulag.

                One of my pet peeves with statists is that they continually think of themselves as the elite guiding lights, so superior in smarts and knowledge, yet they continually have to rework their regulations as the dumb unwashed masses find ways around their stifling regs.

    2. I dunno. Most lefties I know would have no problem with executing rich people (excepting left-minded rich people of course) and distributing their ill-gotten gains to the poor.

  10. lol what a bunch of crooks, all of em!


  11. Love the Van Jones bit at the beginning. You can’t tell if he recognizes Peter and is smart enough not to debate him…or if he is merely acting like a left wing media darling who refuses to talk to any outfit that isn’t already in the tank for him.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.