Joe Rogan Debates Investment Banker Peter Schiff

Wow! And I thought the sparks flew when Joe had Skeptoid’s Brian Dunning on the show. Check out this one-on-one clash between Joe Rogan and investment banker Peter Schiff. (Also available in audio.)

100 Comments on "Joe Rogan Debates Investment Banker Peter Schiff"

  1. It seems like this guy is mixing truths with half-truths.

  2. Rus Archer | Jan 23, 2014 at 1:35 pm |

    schiff = ultramaroon
    the universe is not built of money

  3. BuzzCoastin | Jan 23, 2014 at 2:37 pm |

    There are domains in which expertise is not possible. Stock picking is a good example. And in long-term political strategic forecasting, it’s been shown that experts are just not better than a dice-throwing monkey.

    Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize in Economics

    • BuzzCoastin | Jan 23, 2014 at 2:40 pm |

      Human beings cannot comprehend very large or very small numbers. It would be useful for us to acknowledge that fact.

      Daniel Kahneman

      • BuzzCoastin | Jan 23, 2014 at 2:44 pm |

        We’re blind to our blindness. We have very little idea of how little we know. We’re not designed to know how little we know.

        Daniel Kahneman

  4. kowalityjesus | Jan 23, 2014 at 4:14 pm |

    I have watched a lot of Schiff. He is a smart and experienced guy, and has a lot of useful positions which are more right than most people give him credit for. But he’s a dysfunctional debater, so much so that he should go into politics. He and other libertarians, e.g. John Stossel or Ron Paul, have a brittle position that all government intervention is awful. In today’s political climate of out-of-control Executive powers, hemmorhaging public coffers, and perpetually more and more laws, God love them they are mostly right.
    But because they refuse to admit even one point where government is vital, like rural electrification, FDA, EPA, public roads and infrastructure, their position can never be taken seriously. They are like too proud or asinine to take anything but a black and white position, which is almost never practical or applicable, just factionalizing.

    • kowalityjesus | Jan 23, 2014 at 5:56 pm |

      “Federal aid is like a blood transfusion from your left arm to your right arm. There’s no point and you’re losing anything you spill.” Schiff

      Finally they get to the point of what ACTUALLY will FIX the problems instead of just complaining about them @ 2:02:40. Yes I have that much time, I am unemployed.

      • Eric_D_Read | Jan 24, 2014 at 1:32 am |

        Even in the last hour Schiff holds to some beliefs that I think are wrong.
        But I will give him the credit of being honest. Even where I think he’s wrong; I don’t think he’s blatantly lying to further his interests. I think every position he takes is because he believes what he’s saying; which is a rare quality these days.

        • Any time dude is questioned (through about 1:30:00, as far as I’ve listened yet) to a point where the only response feels like it should be ‘yes’ or ‘no’, he goes right back into talking about the devastating future collapse or excessive government intervention. He refuses to jump outside of his boxes so far. And he does say a lot of stuff that makes sense to me, too. I’m with you, he seems to be genuine in what he’s saying, but where I sense him being disingenuous is in the constant circling back to the same point whenever he feels one of his beliefs will be questioned if he answers the obvious ‘yes, the planet should come first.’ It got kind of funny after a while. You could see it in Joe’s face, if you happened to watch. Could really hear it in his voice at times too, how genuinely he was taken aback with a ‘do you think, say, THIS?? REALLY, Peter?’ tone. Really interesting episode so far though. I think guys like this bring out the best in Joe. Am I still typing?

          • Eric_D_Read | Jan 24, 2014 at 2:31 pm |

            I’m not sure it’s him being disingenuous rather than bumping into the walls of his ideology box.
            I think it’s most apparent when Rogan tells him that you can’t put an accurate dollar amount on the damage done by companies like BP; and even if you could, no amount of money can make it right.
            He can’t grasp that concept because it contradicts his religion.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 24, 2014 at 2:59 pm |

            Can you refer me (us) to data showing that the effects of the BP spill will be (are) long lasting and irreversible? I’m just uninformed and curious on the topic, and don’t want to depend on MSM BS from a google search.
            My suggestion is, what if in the long term, the result of the BP spill is nil? No lasting damage, full recovery of the ENV. I’m not saying that makes it ok, but it would make it less important.

          • Twenty Years Later, Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Linger


            Shortly after the Exxon Valdez oil spill gripped the world with images of an environmental assault, the CEO of the oil company predicted that in a few years there would be “nothing” to evidence the disaster.

            He was wrong. Today, 20 years after the largest spill in U.S. waters, the oil that gushed from the hull of the Exxon Valdez is still having effects.

            Sea otters once again play in the waters of Alaska’s Prince William Sound, and salmon and some other species have rebounded. But killer whale populations have not recovered, and the huge schools of whirling
            herring that fed both fishermen and animals have not returned, remindingscientists that nature’s responses are complex and unpredictable.

            You may notice this is coming from Yale, also written in 2009.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 24, 2014 at 5:59 pm |

            No more ignorant than you are on predicting the future or identifying causation in something this complex, as your article points out. Your post implies that everything there is ‘visibly’ back to normal. 20 years is a snap of the fingers in geo-environmental terms, and I did say long term..
            Also, are you aware that oil and natgas have always naturally seeped through the ocean floor?
            Don’t get me wrong, BP should have punishments imposed on it. There’s no question they caused a lot of damage.

          • What’s to predict about the 4,768 dead animals collected as of 13 August 2010: 4,080 of these were birds and 525 sea turtles.

            Along with the 11 platform workers that died in the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion of April 20, 2010.

            That’s 4,779 living beings that are gone. This is the most obvious.

            Then there’s the sick dolphins. The 5 times the regular rate of stranded sea turtles. The imbalance to the human and animal food web.

            If you can’t understand that, then I don’t know what else to say.

          • Rhoid Rager | Jan 24, 2014 at 6:25 pm |

            He’s a troll. That’s all Lookinfor has ever been on this Web site.
            He baits people into useless arguments. He’s also a misogynist. Not worth your time, because nihilists don’t want to be convinced of anything.

          • I know, but throwing barbs at dipsits is great anger management. It’s beats the pants off of goosfraba. Also, as you mentioned in another comment. It strengthens my reslove on issues, as well as honing my countering.

          • Rhoid Rager | Jan 24, 2014 at 6:41 pm |

            Good point. Have at it then!

          • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 24, 2014 at 6:50 pm |

            That’s why I’m here as well, so we have something in common.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 24, 2014 at 6:42 pm |

            F you and your unfounded characterizations. YOU haven’t ever convinced me of anything because you are full of shit. Oh yeah, I forgot, your MO is, anyone with a different point of view is a troll and a nihilist. Cuz I’ve really seen you and others ‘concede’ a lot during the discourse on this site. You guys are real learners.

          • DrDavidKelly | Jan 24, 2014 at 6:42 pm |

            I personally think you’re both swell guys. x

          • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 24, 2014 at 6:50 pm |

            Hey it’s a real shame, it is. I’m an animal lover. But I’m just trying to put this in perspective as a measure of magnitude. People seem to have increasingly fanatical reactions to things lately.

          • oil and natgas have always naturally seeped through the ocean floor?

            At what rate does it seep?

          • At whatever rate is necessary to justify deregulating the oil industry and cutting their taxes.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 24, 2014 at 6:47 pm |

            Dunno, but it does so in many places and over millennia. The BP spew was a moment in time. Look, if you can show me that the majority of the BP spew didn’t separate out and become just a drop in the bucket amongst all the other “oil in the ocean”, I’ll concede wholeheartedly and join you in your belief that BP should be torched. But I don’t think that is the case.

          • First don’t put words in mouth. Not once have I said that BP should be torched. Second, the natural seepage is unlike the vast ammounts that unnaturally spilled in torrents due to BP. Your argument is nonsense.

            Natural seeps can be thought of as natural springs from which liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons (hydrogen-carbon compounds) leak out of the ground. Oil seeps are fed by natural underground accumulations of oil and natural gas. Satellite images have identified hundreds of areas where oil is likely to seep from the Earth’s crust into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

            These seeps occur over a wide range of the 615,000 mi² (1.6 million km²) Gulf. A 2003 study by the National Research Council and a 2009 report by oil spill expert Dagmar Schmidt Etkin indicate that between 560,000 and 1,400,000 barrels per year (1,534 to 3,835 barrels per day) seep into the Gulf of Mexico from natural sources. Dozens of natural seeps have been identified off the coasts ofLouisiana and Texas, some in the region of the Deepwater Horizon site.

            These natural seeps are quasi-continuous or chronic inputs that represent a “background” rate of oil input that have been in existence for hundreds or thousands of years. As the term “seep” implies, the rate of release from these sources of oil is much smaller than human spills that often release large, concentrated pulses of oil.

            One of the largest and most intensively studied seepage areas lies off Coal Oil Point, in Santa Barbara County, California. Individual seeps in this area release an estimated 80 to 100 barrels (3,360 to 4,200 gallons) of oil per day; Deepwater Horizon is releasing 12,000 to 19,000 barrels per day.


            In other words, STFU!!!

          • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 24, 2014 at 7:07 pm |

            Thanks for proving my point, dipshit. In one area alone “Coal Oil Point”, multiple seeps of 100 barrels a day. In one small area. DWH spewed for 87 days. So between 1 million and 5 million barrels. Do the math dipshit. With a few hundred seeps at 100 barrels a day not even accounting for probably a fraction of worldwide seeps, there is no comparison.. In terms of Oil in the sea, DWH was just a blip.
            Once again, I reiterate, the near term damage done is not to be understated, and BP should have been punished and made to clean up what they can. And they were.

          • DWH was unnatural. Get that through your erroneous conservative talking point brainwashed thick skull. The oil that spilled in torrents was more concentrated. This is very bad, and not compareable to the natural seepage.

            verb: seep; 3rd person present: seeps; past tense: seeped; past participle: seeped; gerund or present participle: seeping
            (of a liquid) flow or leak slowly through porous material or small holes.
            “water began to seep through the soles of his boots”synonyms:ooze, trickle, exude, drip, dribble, flow, issue, escape, leak, drain, bleed, filter, percolate, soak

          • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 27, 2014 at 12:25 pm |

            Wow. I can’t believe you even posted this as if you are making a valid point. Slow, fast.. who cares? The volume is absolutely comparable. In *fact*, the everyday volume from ‘seeps’ dramatically exceeds the DWH gush, or whatev you want to call it. In terms of oil in the oceans, other than the obvious near term damage, which I pointed out is not to be understated, the seeps account for the vast majority of it. I don’t need anyone else’s talking points to make that point. It’s simple math.

          • You are either an idiot, or a shill. As far as I am concerned, The latter seems less likely to me.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 27, 2014 at 1:56 pm |

            Blink.. blink.. Are you denying the facts? It’s very humorous to be called an idiot by someone who’s been adamantly arguing that 2+2 = 10.

          • Sorry I don’t speak idiot. It all sounds so muffled, perhaps if you pull your head out of your ass, I can hear you clearer.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 27, 2014 at 2:09 pm |

            “Sorry I don’t speak idiot.”
            Really? You seem fluent to me.

          • I have grown bored of your bullshit. Run along elsewhere and spread your bullshit with other conservatards idiots.

          • Do you know at what rate Corexit seeps from the ocean floor?

          • Someone recovers fully from a gunshot wound with no lasting effects. What punishment does the shooter warrant?

          • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 24, 2014 at 5:50 pm |

            I wouldn’t suggest BP shouldn’t have been punished for the immediate damage they caused. Not at all.

          • I didn’t mean to imply that you were, I wouldn’t assume that. Just pointing that out in the growing discussion, that’s all!

          • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 24, 2014 at 6:04 pm |

            In fact, your analogy is perfect. A shooter ‘would’ suffer less severe punishment if the victim fully recovered than he would if the victim dies or was disfigured.

          • Eric_D_Read | Jan 24, 2014 at 10:05 pm |

            There’s another angle to look at that analogy from.
            What if you had a rich neighbor who was out in his backyard shooting his gun off and a stray bullet paralyzed or killed someone you love dearly. Maybe they knew the danger and just didn’t give a shit.
            How much money would fix that situation for you? Is there a dollar amount; or can some debts only be paid with screams and blood.

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 27, 2014 at 2:13 pm |

            Good question, dangerous territory literally. One that is actually well played out in US self defense law, which is entirely gun dominated.
            In US culture use of the gun is sanctioned over other methods of violence. One would in fact often receive far less of a penalty for using a firearm if the result was not a casualty. The same cannot be said for other methods of defense. Knives are not afforded the same distinction. Some states, if you manually apply any restriction to the airway have an automatic attempted murder or 1st degree in case of death due to concept of intent.
            The gun itself seems to be provided both a sense of agency due to its potency and potential randomness of effect. We assume, falsely that it is death (and justice) incarnate. Thus when that does not occur there is a degree of absolution for the will the shooter.

            So in application to something like environmental damage, do we wish, because of the same aspects of randomness, attribute an ‘act of god’ status as is given to natural environmental damage? Does this not give to the perpetrators an even higher degree of worldly power without commensurate responsibility?

          • I think it does, in response to your final paragraph. That sounds like the same logic seemingly always used in writing in new bills and laws. Some nondescript point in the decision making process for that particular case that allows for personal interpretation of the law/bill/regulation on behalf of the person who happens to hold the position of power at that time. Anything can be defined as an ‘act of god’, and like you asked, I think those kinds of natural loopholes that come with our reality are the kinds of things that governments and other entities have been taking advantage of for eons.

            Thanks for the response, you got my mind up and running on a Monday after a long weekend. Not always easy! (:

          • Eric_D_Read | Jan 24, 2014 at 5:05 pm |

            Nope. Nobody really knows the full extent of the damage; and I’m sure the U.S. Gov and its parent companies are determined to make sure that we never will.

            Seeing as the scientific community are little more than intellectual mercenaries or ideologues, I’m sure you can find studies that will tell you whatever you want to hear.

            I think the closest you’re going to get to the truth is to do your own experiments with environmental pollution. Start your own vegetable garden and, whenever your car needs an oil change, just pour the old oil out right next to it. Watch what happens.

          • Agreed. That’s a much more eloquent and accurate way of putting it, thanks. Bumping into the walls of his ideology box. Imma take that. Imma use it. Imma give you no credit.

          • Eric_D_Read | Jan 24, 2014 at 4:43 pm |

            No problem. I’ll give me enough credit for both of us.

          • Damn right you will. Damn right.

    • mannyfurious | Jan 23, 2014 at 10:29 pm |

      Great comment.

    • misinformation | Jan 24, 2014 at 12:29 am |

      I do not believe that the government is “vital”, regarding the things you’ve listed. Simply because the government “does” these things, does not mean that they are the most efficient at achieving them. Part of the main problem with government is their violence enforced monopoly on, among other things, what you have listed above.

      The FDA, keeping experimental drugs from the market, why? So they don’t harm terminally ill patients? Why does the EPA accept the exemption that fracking receives from the clean water act? Over forty-thousand deaths per year on the ‘public’ roads (which, obviously, the government don’t actually build themselves, they just ‘regulate’ them)? Sounds like success.

      I’m not suggesting that these individual situations prove that your critique is invalid. But a little imagination on these topics would go a long way. After all, as I alluded to earlier, when an entity has a monopoly (through violence) on anything, what incentive is there for them to do it well?

      • kowalityjesus | Jan 24, 2014 at 2:02 am |

        Well THEORETICALLY, there should be accountability for the responsibilities govt monopolizes because of elections: on a local level, and to some degree state level, this is still a factor. Nationally, we have too much disinfo and corralled debate topics and talking points for a sea change to take place. I honestly think that people not having time to ruminate these ideas of change because of work and family is a big factor, but coincidence that is exploited more than evil that is contrived.

        • misinformation | Jan 24, 2014 at 2:33 am |

          I agree with your statement about people being too busy to pay attention – not entirely sure I agree about whether it is exploited or contrived but that, perhaps, is for another time.

          With regards to accountability, I don’t believe that (s)elections change the monopolies, just the monopolizers. It isn’t accountability I’m interested in, it’s the use of violence to enforce monopolies and the lack of voluntary choice in the participation of those monopolies. It doesn’t matter who is selected, they’ll all use violence to enforce participation.

          Something I neglected to mention earlier with regards to writing off ALL libertarian (something that, for me anyway, has yet to be defined, here) positions due to several that you disagree with, would it not stand to reason that one could write off the entire platform of democrats and republicans do to their support of the state’s endeavor to terrorize populations of poor, brown foreigners?

  5. DrDavidKelly | Jan 23, 2014 at 5:02 pm |

    The point of departure for these two is that Schiff thinks free market and endless growth and low to zero regulation is the go and Rogan sees that an unregulated free market as potentially dangerous and endless growth as unattainable and erroneous thinking. You can debate the pros/cons of these two scenarios (as they are doing) until the cows come home. And no doubt regulation causes many problems but could you imagine an unregulated industrial/manufacturing system? They would kill the environment in about 2 months! Where money is involved it has been pretty well demonstrated in the past that everything else is secondary to profit.

    • Yeah, it amazes me that people will buy into entirely ‘unregulated’ things. It’s an understandable theory if we were to have developed under a Schifftonian (roll with it) idea of a free market the last 200 years. Then, what he’s saying makes a lot of sense.

      But imagine somehow trying to translate the way things are done now, the money being in the hands it’s in, into this free, unregulated market that everyone apparently confuses crony capitalism with…that’d be immediate chaos, because the majority of people just are not used to caring where what they buy comes from, how it’s made, etc. etc. Let alone being used to a large company putting care into what they do for YOU, rather than for their bottom line. They don’t really know how to hold these giant businesses accountable for being shitheads. (if we knew, we wouldn’t have let ourselves get into this sitch in the first place) They’re used to being treated like dogshit in 95% of their transactions and buying plastic toys for their kids to lose or destroy. It’d be an immediate amplification of the amount of damage these companies do. It’d be like shutting down the power holding prison cell doors closed and allowing the anger that’s built up in the prisoners to run amok in revenge on the guards and the world outside the prison walls. (just a metaphor, obviously not every prisoner or even necessarily a large portion of them are going to go rape and pillage in that scenario)

      • DrDavidKelly | Jan 24, 2014 at 6:31 pm |

        I hear ya Colby. I can’t get my head around it. A free market where companies can do whatever they pretty much like? Good lord! As you said the companies wouldn’t give a fuck and neither would the consumers as to how their goods are made or services rendered. I’ve got clothes made in China and I know that the people who made them are most likely being horribly exploited but meh, they’re cheap. People don’t boycott goods for ethical reasons – they just don’t. What you think the whole “exploited worker thing” hurt Apple? Pff people still buy their products by the truck load. And Nike? And countless other brands … What if everyone was fucking over their workers and the environment? What then? Go without. Not fucking likely. It puts the onus on people too much and I’m afraid people are shit.

  6. Prince Puffin | Jan 23, 2014 at 10:31 pm |

    I started listening to this on the way to work this morning and am glad I came home to see this post. Schiff made my eyerolls per hour skyrocket, but then I couldn’t tell if maybe he was actually making a good point.

    • Eric_D_Read | Jan 23, 2014 at 11:50 pm |

      He definitely has some good points, but he still jumps in bed with the economic libertarians who view “the market” as their god.
      While economists do have some valid insights, they base their worldviews as much on presuppositions that are demonstrably false (every participant is a rational actor) as they do those that are demonstrably true (supply and demand).

      • Eric_D_Read | Jan 23, 2014 at 11:53 pm |

        ..and also his reaction to Rogan’s statements about the BP spill and fracking.
        Rogan is right when he says you can’t put a dollar value on widespread environmental disaster. Economists can’t grasp that concept. Their ideology won’t let them.

        • Martin Rheaume | Jan 26, 2014 at 12:22 pm |

          I respect that, but I think Peter was just trying to make sure that we recognize that there will be trade offs. If we want to prioritize environmentalism, that’s fine, but don’t do it, and then pretend that it’s not going to have any affects on our current standard of living. Peter accepts that there’s a role for the government to play in regulating the environment.

          • Eric_D_Read | Jan 26, 2014 at 1:16 pm |

            Not according to his own words he doesn’t.
            He said the only role for government is providing national defense by maintaining a defensive military and to protect property rights. That’s it.
            According to him, everything else is best left up to the great and all-knowing market.

          • Martin Rheaume | Jan 26, 2014 at 1:18 pm |

            He clearly said during the video that the government has a role to play to keep people from poisoning our air and water. It’s three hours long, so I’m not going to go search for it, but he said it there, and I’ve heard him say it before.

          • Eric_D_Read | Jan 26, 2014 at 10:35 pm |

            And he clearly wouldn’t say anything specific about what that role is beyond enforcement of property rights.
            If a company poisons your property, you can (try to) sue them for monetary compensation. That’s it.

  7. I think what peter was trying to say about pb is that if you want to have oil you will have some mishaps. people like to pretend that the other guy is responsible for harming the environment but we all are if you live in society. If you drive, or eat, just live. Everything pollutes in one way or another. People pretend that the government is taking care of all the environmental problems, they just make them worse. We wouldn’t even be using oil if governments didnt heavily subsidise OIL. Everyone looks at what the government does and acts like it wouldn’t get done but what’s not getting done because of them. Trams? In a free market people could put their money together and acutely fix these problems instead of voting and feeling proud of their selves. Lets not forget that in a free market there are no corporations. Individual would be held responsible. Joe was pretending that Foxcom wasn’t heavily controlled by the Chines government. China is heavily regulated

    • Rus Archer | Jan 24, 2014 at 5:05 pm |

      i agree
      but the degree that you contribute to the destruction can differ radically
      the u.s. military does causes way more pollution and destruction than entire nations
      but it’s “our” fault

  8. Lookinfor Buford | Jan 24, 2014 at 3:04 pm |

    It’s amazing to me the changes one undergoes when they have ignored the study of finance through most of life, and then begin to learn about the way things really work. It is nearly impossible nowadays to develop and express rational political views while not possessing at least a modest understanding of how finance, and debt in particular, is inseparably tied to the operation of 90% of private biz, and 90% of govt operations as well.

    • Gunther Sonnenfeld | Jan 24, 2014 at 11:06 pm |

      You mean how wars are the proxies for foreign policy, trade and central banking decisions? That politicians are just figureheads for a neofeudalistic system that swings favors to the highest bidder, or the one who can supply the most arms? That banking boils down to a series of ‘black pool’ inside trades driven by ‘classified’ information? That the perceived value of fiat currency itself is predicated on oil elasticity and price fixing? That institutions like the Fed use terms like ‘quantitative easing’ to instill fear-based narratives around impending ‘bubbles’ and provide oh-so heroic solutions to our deepest economic woes? Yeah, pretty much. Political views aren’t rational because they are binary and designed to pit all of against each other via a repeatable series of false choices. As FDR said himself: “Presidents are selected, not elected.” So what’s amazing about all that? What’s new about any of this? Better yet, what are you prepared to do about it?

      • Rhoid Rager | Jan 24, 2014 at 11:50 pm |

        Can’t do anything, but engagement is what legitimates it. Withdraw and live a quiet life, free of the shackles of ambition.

        • Gunther Sonnenfeld | Jan 25, 2014 at 1:53 am |

          Perhaps. Or transition to something greater, more meaningful.

          • Rhoid Rager | Jan 25, 2014 at 2:33 am |

            Do you think something greater requires further organization of information, and, thus, more complexity? If that’s the case, then that won’t be possible. Distributed organization which is based on non-hierarchical social relationships is much more energy efficient. Complexifying social relationships through hierarchical pomp and ritual is incredibly energy inefficient.

          • Gunther Sonnenfeld | Jan 25, 2014 at 1:10 pm |

            Great question. Short answer, I think, is that a chaordic distributive network is possible in which specific value hierarchies can (co)exist. Take the experiment in Lausanne for example — you have a basic wealth (re)distribution going to all ‘common’ people (using this descriptor cheekily 😉 in which everyone gets the basic ‘living wage’. Remember, they don’t have to ‘do’ anything — work, haul machinery, what have you. Then there are those – a smaller percentage of the population — who have chosen to do something with the money: share it with others, invest it, build stuff with it, etc. and some who have chosen to ‘work’ on top of the wage. An even smaller percentage have networked their wages (ala collectives) to handle resources and (re)distribution — which puts them in a specific ‘value class’. The value classes themselves are essentially based on participation, what you contribute to society and/or the community.

            I call these chaordic because I also see these as less organizational (in the traditional sense) and more tribal — you don’t need to form an official entity to action or deliver on intentions, you just need to coalesce. That said, organizations themselves become more like organisms with interpendent elements – people, resources, ideas, etc.

            I use the Lausanne experiment specifically as a use case because taxes and wages were discussed in the podcast and in this thread, but there are lots of real world examples of this idea manifesting in various contexts around the world. Another example is a small bike manufacturer in Mexico City that decided to not just provide ‘living wages’ but ‘thriving wages’ to its employees. They use renewables and all that and have a symbiotic model for production, but their compensatory structure(s) are based on a more egalitarian system that rewards people on ‘performance’ values like trust, enablement, carbon footprint reduction, etc. And again, you see how people inside and outside the org compete over value and form value classes. Other companies I’ve talked to and worked with in Mexico have formed ‘C2C’ (competitor-to-competitor) hubs to do their own versions of the Kalundborg-inspired industrial symbiosis model.

            I’m sure the value class idea will lead to other complexities, but I do feel optimistic that these kinds of tensions will only give rise to more altruistic approaches; if not all people are viewed as equal participants, perhaps the standards of value themselves can be viewed as equal.

            Time will tell…

      • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 27, 2014 at 12:49 pm |

        50% agreed.. My point was simply that most people who express strong political views one way or the other do not understand reality because they lack the most basic understanding of finance and banking. I think several of your statements above are overblown. If any group or individual has too much control, the ship sinks. I’ll just point out that Global economic policy is still in its infancy. Much of what has gone down in the last two decades has been ‘testing the waters’. And I agree the fiat system is FUBAR, but not entirely broken.
        The only thing I *can* do about it is try to make the system work for me. I spent all of my youth as a non-conformist. Then I learned a degree of conformity does have some value. I *could* rant and rave, start a fight, hope for collapse, and buck the system eternally. But I’ve done the math. Not only would it fail to help those who need help, and more likely hurt them, but it is an illusion for one who has nothing, to think that he will somehow gain, if the system is flattened and everyone starts from nil. An understanding of the realities of finance goes a long way toward realizing that.
        Is QE bad, evil? I would say yes. I would say that those who invested (gambled) on derivatives, etc.. should have lost all. I would also say those who bought more house than they could afford, should lose. But, I also understand the cascade that could result from both, and it is very real. The political decisions made, to risk inflation and dollar devaluation to avoid collapse, have not yet had their consequences played out, and it will be interesting to see the final chapter.

        • Gunther Sonnenfeld | Jan 27, 2014 at 9:25 pm |

          Which statements are overblown? The actual real world examples I’ve provided or the previous comment with declarative statements about the way ‘things seem to be’?

          I would assert that ‘most people who express strong political views do not understand the reality of finance and banking’ because they have not been exposed to the alternatives. The foundation of misinformation is one thing, the other is a disconnection from economic realities, some more positive than others. Heck, the three economists that won the Nobel prize this year couldn’t even land the plane on what happened, systemically, during the last crash. That’s what we’re talking about here. No, the system is not entirely broken, because it wasn’t necessarily broken before we went off the gold standard and pushed for ‘shareholder value’ ala Jack Welsh. It wasn’t necessarily broken when we plunged into the CDO market. What was broken was/is the alchemy of the central banks and the inclination of the general public to believe in something out of reach. We’re all responsible on various levels.

          And actually, many of the consequences have played out. The ‘gold rush’ amongst the BRICs (at least from what we can gather, who really knows…) is a direct result of a complete cash exodus and nowhere to go from overleveraging. Talk to your local hedge fund manager — they’re headed straight into sectors like renewables because they can’t collude on the system any more than they have been. What the mainstream media isn’t telling us is the source of the damage behind the trades, nor are they acknowledging the currency nexus/exodus tied to moves with TPP and other policy snowjobs. Shit is definitely playing out in spades. Whatever cash is left and ‘collateralized’ has either gone missing or has gone to pump-and-dump schemes, or in the States goes into buying up real estate, or is being traded, foolishly, in cryptocurrency exchanges (and you wonder why the Chinese shut THOSE down to the general public). Talk about ‘quantitative easing’.

          Are we in freefall? I’d say more like free floating. It’s a wide open field at this point.

  9. Gunther Sonnenfeld | Jan 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm |

    Joe mentions early in this podcast a need to support ecosystems (or ecologies, to use another word), while Schiff rambles on about old, broken economic paradigms, to include assumptions about how wages work, labor forces operate and how people behave under specific scenarios, notions that are largely disconnected from reality.

    With that said, there’s nothing wrong with Peter, or ‘capitalism’, or banking — it’s the ideologies associated with them that keep us debating the same shit and repeating history over and over again. Bottom line? Debt can’t support a ‘free market’. Schiff advocates a ‘free market’ but fails to acknowledge why it doesn’t work. He’s right (to some degree) about currencies, but fails to comprehend that the value in markets is tied to people (ecologies, networks). The minute we went off the gold standard and people like Jack Welsh starting championing ‘shareholder value’ was the minute we saw a real decline in sustainable markets. Why? Because we started profiting at any and all costs and created a continental divide between goods and services and those responsible for actually producing them — the main point Joe is making here.

    I happen to be employed, I am an entrpereneur and I also work with venture capitalists, and I can honestly say that there are lots of solutions available to us. But we have to shift the mindset away from thinking that we can profit at the expense of others or the environment. It’s just not possible to sustain, and we have all the evidence we need to do something different, right now.

    • It’s good business when it is wins all around?

    • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 24, 2014 at 5:47 pm |

      Like what? As long as the fed keeps up cheap money policy, biz will take advantage to increase their profits.

      Really I don’t know what you are going to make a profit on, if it doesn’t involve at least one of: A natural resource, or human labor.

      “I can honestly say that there are lots of solutions available to us”
      Like what?

      • Gunther Sonnenfeld | Jan 24, 2014 at 10:42 pm |

        Like impact investing, value-based production, industrial symbiosis and co-ops. They all exist, they all work and they’re all sustainable. Travel much? If you’ve been to Sweden, Africa or the far east, you’ll know what I’m talking about. Look it up on Wikipedia, for starters. In India, there are entire local economies who do all of what I’ve mentioned above. And no, they don’t subsist on debt or fiat currencies; the investments are hybridized and regulated by the communities themselves.

        In this country, an example of a co-op is what P&G is doing with its Cintrifuse effort — getting companies, funds and people to partner up on new businesses or extensions of businesses to provide jobs, protect the environment and use renewables so that we don’t exploit natural resources. It’s not PR or fancy marketing bullshit either — it’s very real because many large corporations, despite their fierce lobbying, know that they can’t keep producing and selling stuff to a market that doesn’t exist.

        • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 27, 2014 at 1:08 pm |

          “the investments are hybridized and regulated by the communities themselves”

          I hate to break it to you, but the power structures du jour have an insatiable addiction to centralization of power, not the opposite. We’re moving away from localized authority. It doesn’t help matters that the brainwashed youth in this country are screaming out for some imaginary ubiquitous authority that will magically make everything fair across the board, not realizing that they should be careful what they ask for. Central planning is the hallmark of communism.

          That said, I do believe we could solve most, if not all, income-inequality/class issues through employee ownership programs. But it’s paradoxical, because if it is forced by authority (govt), then it fails before it even gets off the ground.

          • Gunther Sonnenfeld | Jan 27, 2014 at 9:06 pm |

            You’ll get no argument me from on the nature of power structures, or Communo-Capitalist agenda. However, I’m giving you examples of things that are happening ‘on the ground’. And we’re actually moving away from centralized authority, even if the central planning strictures are tightening the reins on things like institutional banking. The cards are in play while the deck is falling. That’s a reality. We may not see this reality play out in America in the same ways we would in other places, but with a globalized system in place, the opportunities cut both ways.

            As for employee ownership programs, I agree that’s a good start. But I think it’s much bigger than that. What I’m seeing is decentralization amongst corporations that can’t retain talent without shedding infrastructure, or, investing in it without having to own it. That’s another reality. If you couple that with the fact that many states (at least 28 of them) are pushing to issue greenbacks and/or subsidies tied to real assets, and are are forming state banks (like in North Dakota), it’s becoming more difficult to make the claim that central planning is predominant — the economics can’t support it.

      • Gunther Sonnenfeld | Jan 25, 2014 at 2:00 am |

        Check out the Aravind business case, if you’re not familiar with it (maybe you are). Great example of how natural resources, people and profits scale symbiotically, compassionately. A friend of mine wrote a beautiful book about it called, “Infinite Vision”.

    • Rhoid Rager | Jan 24, 2014 at 6:40 pm |

      “there’s nothing wrong with Peter, or ‘capitalism’, or banking — it’s
      the ideologies associated with them that keep us debating the same shit
      and repeating history over and over again.”
      Actually, Gunther, it’s the nature of money that keeps us repeating the same shit over and over again. You can be a rich venture capitalist, but your ‘solutions’ require a stable energy base, suitable infrastructure and a willing populace to carry them out. The US is starting to lose all three of those factors due to the nature of banking–fractional reserve–and the interest-bearing, debt-based money that spews out from it.

      • > the nature of money

        Money doesn’t have just one nature. There are different kinds that play by different rules that we humans write. None of them are natural or unalterable.

        • Gunther Sonnenfeld | Jan 24, 2014 at 10:50 pm |

          Yes — money is an idea. A concept. A belief that something has or accrues value over time.

          • Rhoid Rager | Jan 24, 2014 at 11:43 pm |

            But that belief contravenes everything we know to be true in nature. That’s the crux of the problem.

          • Gunther Sonnenfeld | Jan 25, 2014 at 1:51 am |


          • No, money is a token of exchange. The idea that is has value other than what you can convince others to give to or do for you for it is what’s wrong.

          • Gunther Sonnenfeld | Jan 25, 2014 at 1:51 am |

            That is your belief, but necessarily a reality. Just like the judgment you ascribe to it. During the Junto days (Ben Franklin, early 1700s), money was a social contract for like goods and services – one token of exchange. But that kind of social contract doesn’t exist anymore. Not in the financial markets we have now.

          • Of that kind of social contract doesn’t exist any more, then how does money work?

          • Rhoid Rager | Jan 25, 2014 at 2:25 am |

            convince is the key word in your argument. the ability to convince others is so skewed towards the core in our centralized society that it seems like an objective force–hence the ‘power’ of the state and the rich. This is what I was referring to before in a separate thread when I told you that you were reifying power.

          • I’m still not convinced I’m reifying power, but I am keeping the possibility in mind. The rest of what you wrote I agree with.

        • Rhoid Rager | Jan 24, 2014 at 11:42 pm |

          Why would you generalize an argument that you know I was being specific about? To be contrarian?

          As for the phenomenological aspect, of course money is alterable–as is anything that humans agree on; but, the hard part is convincing people that they have the power to alter it.

      • Gunther Sonnenfeld | Jan 24, 2014 at 10:35 pm |

        I’m not rich and I’m not a venture capitalist. Sorry to disappoint. But I agree — debt/fiat/central banking doesn’t work, never did.

        • Rhoid Rager | Jan 24, 2014 at 11:36 pm |

          “there’s nothing wrong with Peter, or ‘capitalism’, or banking”

          • Gunther Sonnenfeld | Jan 25, 2014 at 1:45 am |

            There isn’t. Just a guy and a couple of terms. Meaning changes with the context.

          • Gunther Sonnenfeld | Jan 25, 2014 at 2:03 am |

            I don’t think I can backlink here, but I wrote a piece about this on my blog, Designing Literacy. Piece is called “Discovering the Meaning of Money & Value in the Age of Bitcoin”. I think you’ll find that we’re more aligned than you think, with the caveat that there really are solutions to transition us to a system that is based on human value.

          • Rhoid Rager | Jan 25, 2014 at 2:17 am |

            I don’t doubt that we are aligned in values.
            As for transitioning to a system based on human value, that implies inherent heterogeneity, because human values change across time and space. Agency is multifarious and distributed, and for that reason we’re condemned to live in a dualistic reality much to the chagrin of our own connected, emotional proclivities. Thus, there will never be a single system, but loosely related systems that, as you point out below, differ by context (geographical, geological, and biological).

          • Gunther Sonnenfeld | Jan 25, 2014 at 12:47 pm |

            well said.

  10. Martin Rheaume | Jan 26, 2014 at 12:19 pm |

    Joe Rogan, why were you so antagonistic towards Peter Schiff? He’s a brilliant guy, and you guys agree on almost everything, and you kept trying to harp on minor differences. Even the pot thing? He’s on our side, so why did you keep trying to use marijuana as a wedge issue between you when he was trying to use it to bring you guys together?

    You’re great, Joe, but you were a poor host today. You’re usually much more cordial, and you wasted an opportunity to pick Peter’s brain, because you wanted to argue over petty differences. You had a brilliant economist on the show, and you wasted time trying to get him to defend points he wasn’t even trying to make.

  11. Monkey See Monkey Do | Jan 29, 2014 at 6:24 am |

    I couldn’t stand listening to an investment banker for 3 hours. I’m not that masochistic. Can someone point me to some times when the sparks supposedly fly? I’m curious as to whether Joe has been completely duped by the Molyneaux crowd as it always seemed he maybe had more sense than that.

Comments are closed.