Geithner Should Be Fired and Replaced With No One

Peter Schiff makes an excellent point: since the Treasury secretary is obviously nothing but a yes-man for the president, nothing but a shill who propagandizes for existing policy, what on earth do we need him for?

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • Brutus

    I would take it a step further and say that we should elect dead people for congressional positions and for the presidency since they can do nothing when they are dead. At least they could no longer break the Constitution or violate our rights.

  • Guest

    May I ask how the Anarchist variety of Austro-Libertarians how they would propose to deal with the imperialist tendencies of collectivist governments, if not with a Constitutional Republic?

    I mean, didn’t the Thirteen Colonies band together to hold imperialist Britain at bay?

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    What did you think of the video?

  • J Cortez

    Geithner shouldn’t just be fired. He should be fired and then tried in court.

  • Guest

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0945466374?ie=UTF8&tag=misesinsti-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0945466374

  • Guest

    (Apologies for seeming to go off-topic with my last post. The idea of “electing dead presidents” kind of made me think of some of the ideas advanced by the Anarchist-Libertarians. If I believed in ADD, I think I’d have it.)

    Anyway … Yes, back on track.

    I keep hoping that someone will walk up to the Geithners and Obamas and ask, “How come the free-marketeer Ron Paul saw the housing collapse coming, under the Bush Jr. Presidency, and you guys didn’t?”

    They won’t be able to blame Bush’s supposedly free market policies for the crash after that, I think.

    Also, it looks to me like Romney’s collectivist economic philosophy (Considering a VAT? Wants automatic Minimum Wage hikes? Wha-?), along with his success as a businessman, will allow the Left to blame the free market when they finally stop propping up prices.

    Romney will probably try to subsidize stuff because he thinks government can help, but that will just prolong the misery.

    Ron Paul 2012

  • jen

    Peter Schiff should give his expert analysis of Romney’s so-called ‘bus experience’ and that he is the only one that ‘understands business’ as those are the only few words he is mainly basing his candidacy on.  What does Romney’s link to GS mean, when none of the other candidates had those links to all the top lobbyists and banks.

  • Complexphenom

    Epic rant. Love Peter Schiff.

  • Anonymous

    The point of the dead president comment was that a dead man would adhere to the constitution more than the presidency has throughout the twentieth century. It was not meant to actually advocate electing a dead president. As far as the Anarcho-Capitalist thing is concerned, I am not an Anarcho-Capitalist, but an advocate of constitutional government. I agree with the last part though. Ron Paul 2012.

  • Guest

    Your point was well stated, with regard to a dead man better adhering to the Constitution than most of our Presidents.

    Your post merely afforded me the opportunity to ask of the Anarcho-Free-Marketers the answer to a nagging question I have; My question trades off the notion of electing, essentially, no one.

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.swaringen Matthew Swaringen

    I tend to think in the modern era even though people can still be convinced to go to war on false pretenses it’s harder to maintain it afterward due to the media, and it’s much harder to repress media these days.

    Due to this, I think a huge insurgency would be a major problem for any military power, and since an anarchist “country” would have no central agency, you can’t just go defeat the guys with the army and then take over their capital and start taxing people.  So you’d have to go house by house trying to confiscate all the guns people have.

    In the past there are a couple of important things to note regarding anarchist societies 1) they were not necessarily anarchist in a strict sense of the NAP, but more decentralized and tribalistic.  2) the attacking invaders were much larger and sometimes more advanced (despite the problems with their system, due to trade among a larger population/etc.) 

    The colonies defeated Britain because they didn’t really try that hard and had some very much needed help from France.   

    You might also look up Stefan Molyneux’s debate with Jan Helfeld on youtube.  I found Stefan to have the better argument and ended up coming around to anarcho-capitalism due to it in part, although I disagree with him quite a few things.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.swaringen Matthew Swaringen

    Schiff is really good on these issues.