Interview with Peter Schiff for Freedom From Choice feature documentary. Mr. Schiff discusses the coming economic crisis due to banks being bailed out during the financial crisis of 2008.

Watch the film at …(read more)

LEARN MORE ABOUT: Bank Failures

REVEALED: Best Investment During Inflation

HOW TO INVEST IN GOLD: Gold IRA Investing

HOW TO INVEST IN SILVER: Silver IRA Investing

Peter Schiff, a well-known economist and financial commentator, has long been a vocal critic of government intervention in the economy. In his recent interviews and op-eds, Schiff has shed light on why bank bailouts, which are often touted as measures to prevent or alleviate financial crises, can actually lead to even bigger crises in the long run.

Schiff argues that bank bailouts create a dangerous moral hazard. By bailing out large financial institutions that have made risky investments and irresponsible decisions, governments communicate that failure will not be tolerated and that these banks will be rescued no matter what. This encourages excessive risk-taking and reckless behavior in the future, as banks know they will be shielded from the consequences of their actions by government support.

Additionally, Schiff points out that bank bailouts often result in the socialization of losses. When a bank fails, it not only affects its investors and shareholders but also its creditors and depositors. Rather than holding those responsible for poor decisions accountable, bailouts transfer the burden onto taxpayers who had no involvement in the risky activities undertaken by the banks. This not only creates an unfair distribution of risk but also removes any incentive for prudent decision-making and responsible behavior in the financial sector.

Moreover, Schiff highlights the detrimental impact of bank bailouts on market competition. When weak and troubled banks are propped up and kept afloat, this prevents healthier and more responsible institutions from taking their place. By not allowing natural market forces to take their course and failing institutions to go out of business, bailouts enable inefficient banks to survive, stifling innovation and inhibiting the emergence of a robust banking sector.

Schiff also argues that bailouts perpetuate systemic problems within the financial system. By merely addressing the symptoms of a crisis and not its root causes, governments fail to address the fundamental issues that led to the crisis in the first place. This can lead to a cycle of crises, where the same problems keep resurfacing with increasing severity.

Instead of resorting to bailouts, Schiff advocates for a more market-based approach. He believes in letting failing banks go bankrupt, which would serve as a valuable lesson to both the institutions and the broader market. By allowing the failures to occur, Schiff argues that stronger institutions will emerge, leading to a healthier and more resilient financial sector in the long term.

In conclusion, Peter Schiff presents a compelling case against bank bailouts, stressing their potential to exacerbate financial crises rather than mitigate them. He argues that these bailouts create moral hazards, socialize losses, hinder competition, and fail to address the root causes of systemic problems. Schiff suggests that a market-oriented approach, where failed banks are allowed to go bankrupt, could provide a more sustainable solution. Whether or not policymakers heed his warnings remains to be seen, but his analysis serves as a reminder that the consequences of bank bailouts reach far beyond their immediate impact.