Peter Schiff: It Has Begun! The Fed Has Started Seizing Our Money (We Are Going To Experience Worse)

요약 보기

Peter Schiff은 연준이 양적완화를 즉시 중단하고 양적긴축으로 전환해야 하며, 그러지 않으면 주식·부동산·채권이 붕괴하고 통화위기·하이퍼인플레이션으로 훨씬 더 큰 고통이 온다고 주장한다. 연준은 QE를 줄이는 것만으로는 부족하며 즉시 중단하고 국채·MBS를 매각해 금리를 크게 올려야 한다는 입장이다. 그는 지금의 구조적 부채 문제를 인정하지 않고 시장이 현실적인 가격으로 재조정되도록 두는 편이 낫다고 본다. 소련의 상품 부족 사례를 들어, 돈을 찍어 수요만 늘리면 공급은 생기지 않는다고 설명한다. 현재 인플레이션은 공급 부족이 아니라 통화 과잉의 결과라는 논지다. 그는 이미 스태그플레이션 상태에 들어섰다고 보며, 케인즈 경제학을 천문학 대비 점성술에 비유할 정도로 비판한다. 경기 침체와 인플레이션이 동시에 있으면 연준은 둘 중 하나를 포기해야 하는 딜레마에 빠진다고 설명한다. 1980년 볼커 시절과 달리 현재는 국가부채가 훨씬 크고 단기 차입 비중과 변동금리 대출, 기업의 단기부채가 많아 고금리를 감당하기 어렵다고 본다. 긴축을 강행하면 대공황급 침체와 사회보장·메디케어 대폭 삭감, 국가부채 디폴트나 재조정이 불가피하다는 것이 그의 결론이다. 출연자 전망: 장기적으로 매우 비관적이며 단기 금리 상승과 자산 붕괴, 이후 통화위기를 예상한다.

다듬은 글

※ 자동 자막 원문(다듬기 전)

01. what is the solution then if we want to not see this sort of dollar crisis if we don't want to see the sort of crazy inflation into the next few years what do we do yeah well the fed should not just taper qe it should halt it right now just stop doing it not just gradually reduce the amount of qe that's adding gasoline to the fire maybe they're adding less gasoline but you don't put out a fire by pouring less gasoline on it you you gotta you know stop stop that or put water on it so the fed has to go cold turkey just right now no more qe in fact we need to reverse we need quantitative tightening the federal reserve needs to start selling treasuries and mortgage-backed securities it has to let interest rates go up and not just a little bit they need to go up a lot and of course when that happens the whole house of cards literally is going to come crashing down the fed has to let stocks crash let real estate crash let bonds crash none of these guys have any integrity they don't give a damn about the country they just want to make sure that they don't get the blame uh for the the collapse so as i said we kicked a can down the road now that doesn't mean we're gonna get away with it because ultimately the price that we're going to pay for not doing the right thing is going to be enormous because we are going to have a currency crisis we may have hyperinflation and all of that is much worse than just letting the markets reprice uh to a realistic level and letting investors lose money and forcing the government to cut spending if we continue until we have you know hyperinflation we wipe out everybody and it's the losses are going to be far more painful for a lot more people but obviously the time will run out at some point if we if we don't do something but there is no way to avoid hyperinflation without a lot of pain now of course hyperinflation will be even more pain but we have to be willing to bite that bullet and do it to ourselves rather than waiting for the crisis to do it to us i i think when if you're if you're listening to my recent podcasts i was just comparing the rhetoric or the propaganda that the soviets used to rationalize um you know shortages of goods in their country and the relative abundance in the u.s you know because back in the 1950s or 1960s you know the soviets would see images of stores in america supermarkets with all sorts of products on the shelves you know but in the soviet union the supermarkets the shelves were empty there was nothing there and but the people were being told that you know the soviet union was you know the workers paradise and america was where the evil capitalists exploited the workers and so everybody in america was poor and all the soviets had so much more money and so it was confusing for them when they saw all these products and the way the soviet union spun that is they said well that's because americans are so poor they can't afford to buy anything and so the products just sit unsold on the shelves but in the soviet union the workers have so much money the minute products are on the shelves they buy them right away you know and then they would say and you know the american problem is a very difficult problem because the americans will never have enough money to buy those products however here in the soviet union since we already have so much money well eventually there'll be products to buy but you know you've got all the money and you know of course that all made sense uh until you you know really thought about it because the hard part is producing the products anybody can print money right and that's what the soviet union did they printed a lot of money but there were shortages of everything because nobody made anything uh and now the u.s government is trying to tell americans oh the reason prices are going up is because of supply shortages it's not supply shortages it's it's a surplus of money you just can't print money and give it to people and expect there to be goods to buy the goods have to be produced demand has to come from supply if you just print money and create demand you can't get supply demand can't can't create supply supply is what creates demand just because people want something doesn't mean it's going to magically appear stuff has to be produced before you can consume it could you tell us what is stagflation and are we experiencing or are we at risk of any sort of stagflation yeah i mean we've already got it i think and of course it's the worst case scenario it's the fed's worst nightmare so admit it yeah and it's interesting too because the reason we even call it stagflation is during the 1970s we were faced with a situation where we had high unemployment and high inflation and the economists of the day keynesian economists thought this was impossible they believed that the only way you would have high inflation is if you had a strong economy with low unemployment it was thought that high unemployment in and of itself meant that you would have low inflation there was a trade-off they talked about the phillips curve and so this completely perplexed the keynesian economist because they were confronted with something that their textbook said couldn't happen and so then they came up with the name stagflation to describe this thing that they thought was impossible well the reason they thought it was impossible was because they don't really understand economics i mean the whole school of thought is complete nonsense i always say that keynesianism to economics is like astrology to astronomy i mean maybe there's stars there and stuff but it's got nothing to do with actual science but you know historically normally it's weak economies that have rising prices you know strong economies have lower prices falling prices so we've got stagflation but the reason it's a big problem is because the keynesian toolbook is very simple if the economy is weak you print money to stimulate it right if the economy is strong right then you withdraw money from circulation so and they also do that through interest rates so weak economy recession cut interest rates strong economy inflation raise interest rates right well what happens if you've got a weak economy and inflation at the same time you can't cut and raise interest rates together you can't have a loose money and a tight monetary policy simultaneously so the fed has got to pick its poison right is it going to try to stimulate the economy or is it going to try to fight inflation because it can't do both and if it tries to stimulate the economy the act of stimulating the economy will make the inflation problem even worse so not only does it have would the fed ignore the inflation problem to try to stimulate the weak economy but in doing it would make the inflation problem even worse so that's why it's the worst possible outcome for the fed it's the outcome that we have and that's why they have to completely deny it exists so then how would you solve that because in the 70s they had to really raise interest rates in the 80s to to combat what we were seeing in the 70s well that's what paul volcker the fed ultimately decided in 1980 that it was going to fight inflation regardless of the impact it had on the economy and employment so they took those type of decisive actions to fight inflation that was their primary goal well if the fed were to do that it would require a similar commitment to tight money the problem is when volcker did it the national debt was a small fraction of what it is today uh corporations and individuals had much less debt and the nature of the debt was different the us government's national debt was financed with 30-year bonds now it's financed with one-year t-bills so when volcker raised interest rates up to 20 in 1980 it only impacted the new borrowing it had no effect on the national debt but if we were to raise interest rates now substantially even five or ten percent for you know 20 but the entire 30 trillion dollar national debt would be infected and impacted in fact i think 10 trillion of the debt matures in the next year so all that low interest rate debt would have to roll over in this higher interest rate environment back in the 19 1980 nobody had an adjustable rate mortgage they didn't exist now you've got a lot of people that have adjustable rate mortgages look at the credit card debt that we have now that we didn't have then i mean everybody corporations have a lot of short-term debt look how much money they've borrowed to buy back their stock in a low interest rate environment well when we move into a high interest rate environment this is going to be a disaster so if the fed were to do what volcker did and just fight inflation regardless of the impact on the economy uh it would be a far deeper a recession than we had in 1980 82 in fact it would be a depression and the u.s government would be forced to cut spending massively in fact it would have to make deep cuts to social security and medicare and it may even have to default on the national debt on the treasury bonds it would have to tell our creditors look we can't pay we don't have the money so we're going to have to renegotiate and and have a restructuring of this debt because we can't make the payments at these higher interest rates