The Psychology of Anti-Schiff-ism
February 03, 2011
– Comments (17)
I've been thinking about this in brevity over the last several months. There is a definitely bizarre relationship between Peter Schiff and ideological opponents. It's vastly different from the relationship you'll find between those same opponents and the work of other gold investors and libertarians.
I don't get it. And when I don't get it, I think about it. So I'm going to throw out a few ideas and maybe none of them accurately tell the whole story. But I'm sure I'll be put straight in the comment section.
Idea #1 - The guy is just plain annoying
It could simply be a personality trait. I can't sit and listen to Schiff for more than 15 minutes myself, because after a while he wears on you. There's just something about him. I'm a podcast junkie. I listen to them to and from work, during workouts, etc. I used to have Schiff's Wall Street Unspun on my subscription list, but after a while I just couldn't take him anymore. He's insightful, but sometimes just annoying. I"d much rather listen to Gold Seek Radio, which is more informative and interesting.
But being annoying doesn't engender the level of animosity I see on CAPS, reddit, pragcap, etc. So there's more to it.
Idea #2 - His performance doesn't match his fame
It's not fair, since Schiff is not legally allowed to make investment decisions for his clients, but his investment funds do not have a track record that matches his fame. Mish Shedlock tried to make a name for himself by bagging on Schiff's performance. Mish's attack was both uninformed and hypocritical, since his deflationary theories never panned out either. Schiff took a hit, fairly, for predicting hyperinflation immediately after the bailouts. This upset even supporters in the Austrian School, such William Anderson who writes the excellent Krugman-In-Wonderland blog. Perhaps Schiff's fame had gotten too his head.
That still doesn't explain it, but I assume it plays a part. Schiff's subsequent admission that his timing was off, that he didn't see the brief dollar rally coming in late 2008-early 2009, was more humility than I see from dozens of market pundits. Yet, ask a Schiff-hater about Schiff's honesty and it's dismissed as another charlatan's tactic. There's more to it...
Idea #3 - Perhaps it's just the price of fame
We all know why Schiff is famous. He called the housing bust. On TV. While getting laughed at by pro-Fed schills on vairous network programs. It's on YouTube. It's a famous clip. It helped increase interest in precious metals, monetary policy, and libertarianism. Of course, he's not the only one. Several Austrian School economists have documented papers and videos in which they predict the housing bubble and bust with remarkable accuracy. See here.
So perhaps it's the fame itself. Schiff is on TV every 15 minutes, it seems. Jim Cramer suffers a similar fate in that no matter what he says or does at this point, certain people are always going to view him in a particular way. A Cramer-hater isn't going to change his mind if Jim saves Christmas. Maybe that's Schiff's fate as well. People are envious of fame. That's nothing new.
Again, I think this is part of it, but not the whole story.
Idea #4 - Attacking the low hanging fruit is easy
One of the best pieces of advice I ever received went like this: "Nothing in life worth having comes easy. It was easy, everyone would have it."
That's true even in the intellectual arena. Schiff is an easy target for those that want to discredit libertarian ideas, Austrian School economics, and/or gold investors. He's not going to overwhelm you with discussions on economic methodology. You won't hear the words "intertemporal structure of intermediate goods" during a CNBC interview. I'm certain that Schiff grasps praxeological concepts and catallactics, but it's not something he's going to talk or write about. He keeps it simple.
So it's easy to attack Schiff. He's not the equal of David Gordon or Joe Salerno on economics. He's not the Tom Woods or Robert Murphy of argumentation. He probably can't debate top economic scholars on their terms like they do. His adversaries are also the low hanging fruit: the Kudlows and Steins.
This sets up the "gotcha!" moment. It occurs when a person is peculiarly fixated in opposition to, oh let's call them gold-bugs... They attack Schiff, feel as though they vanquished him (usually through ad hominem), and then remark on the entire culture of libertarianism as though they've pulled back the curtain and exposed the Wizard of Oz.
If only life was so easy. But that's the way the of the world. People want easy answers and if knocking Schiff and "gold-bugs" down every chance you get provides you with comfort, don't let me stand in your way.
But if you really grasped Austrian School economic theories, libertarian philosophy, or gold-bug monetary ideas, attacking Peter Schiff wouldn't even be on your radar. He'd be a petty nuisance and little else. It would be the foundations that you would be after. What are the core conclusions? How did they arrive at those conclusions? In what ways are they ambiguous or incorrect in their reasoning?
Add your own idea.
It's a real phenomenon, and I don't have all the answers. I open this up to comments. Here's a template you can use to flame me:
Peter Schiff is {perjorative or ad hominem} because {reason unrelated to Austrian School economic theory}. {other unmentioned school of thought or personal belief} is way better than his. {unrelated supporting or -denigrating comment, preferably with poor spelling and/or chat-acceptable spelling}
(Hat tip to Football Outsiders for the template)
David in Qatar
RSS Headlines
Fool UK