Argument with 82abhilash

[Travis Retriever]

On this video (You can watch it if you like.  Does Schiff mean he wants the Fed to decrease the supply of loanable funds?):  [yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-j2tQhIB2LY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-j2tQhIB2LY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]

Me:  I agree with Peter Schiff on many things, but I do disagree on his point about the Fed raising internet rates: watch?v=Ubmjc83yAtI ("What Caused the Great Depression?" by ShaneDK). To raise interest rates, the fed must pull money out of circulation. It was this exact policy (inflating then deflating) that caused the great depression.
We need the Fed to do nothing, like in 1920, where the economy recovered in a about a year.

bearcat648:  "Actually, all the Fed has to do to raise interest rates is do nothing, like you say. Stop the (metaphoric) printing of money, and interest rates will rise on their own."

vortmax1:  "I completely agree with you... however I think that's what Schiff meant. By doing nothing, the Fed would merely be ALLOWING interest rates to rise as market forces dictate. I agree with you that raising interest rates artificially is just as destructive as lowering them artificially. So instead of saying "the Fed should raise interest rates" I think what he meant to say is "the Fed should allow interest rates to rise and tell the truth."

82abhilash:  "He did not say that the fed must raise the interest rates, at least I did not hear him say that in this clip. Indicate to me where he did please. I did hear him say they must MAINTAIN high interest rates. That indicates to me that he thinks the interest rates would be high if there was no Fed interference and they should let it stay that way (keep at the same level aka maintain). Perhaps he should have said maintain natural interest rates, but no one there would understand that."

Me:  "Look for the videos where he responds to the Fed's threats to increase interest rates. He says that that's what they need to do."

82abhilash:  "You have not substantiated what you said. It is simple. Give me a video link and if possible the time slice in the video."

Me:  "Don't lie. "Look for the videos where he responds to the Fed's threats to increase interest rates." I gave you something to go by. Just because I didn't give you the exact piece of him saying doesn't mean I didn't give you anything.

I just didn't feel like providing a link to a video: I expected you to find it yourself.

However, after much searching and no success, and finding stuff he wrote that contradicts that, it might be that I took it out of context, in which case, my bad."

82abhilash:  "Your bad, it looks like it is. You just said something is true to me and then instead of substantiating the claim yourself, expected me to do it for you. Unless you substantiate, I have nothing to verify. Your bad indeed." (I wanted to fucking kill him after he said that...)

Me:  "*facepalm*
I gave you the keywords for the video to look for it.
Don't say I gave you nothing when I gave you something."

82abhilash:  "No keywords. You said something. Refused to substantiate it. And then had the tenacity to claim that you expect me to substantiate it myself!! You made the claim, so yours is the burden of proof. You looked and came back empty. You are right about one thing. You gave me something. Distraction. Why not just admit that you goofed up?" (And that.  If it was supposed to be good enough for me in my argument with Shane, why not for him?)

Me:  "I did.  What did you think I meant by 'my bad.'"

82abhilash:  "Sure thing goofy."

Me:  "I made a reference to a video.
You're the one making the big deal out of it.
I know what burden of proof is, I didn't expect it would be so hard to find the video.
I goofed up.
Now fuck off and leave me alone,
ass."

82abhilash: "It is just that your goof up had potential far reaching implications. Which is why I made a big deal."
(Like???)

Not just in terms of debate, but also for semi arbitration of moral-esque stuff.  Who was in the right?
Was this a jerk, were we about even, or did I go completely out of bounds?

[MrBogosity]

It's a grey area, I think. You should have been more forthcoming with a link when pressed, but I don't think he should have made that big a deal out of it, either.

[MrBogosity]

After 5:00: Man, they STILL haven't learned, have they? How much does the guy have to be right before they'll start listening?

[Travis Retriever]

OK.
The kicker is, I tried to look for the video in question, but couldn't find it.
I wasn't about to go through 200-300 videos of him in order to find it, nor was I going to make him do the same after seeing that the video wasn't that easy to find (hence the "my bad" deal that he clearly didn't seem to understand).
I did however, find some writings of Schiff's and see that he was talking about the market rate needing to be used, as opposed to interventionism via the fed which is what I thought he meant http://caps.fool.com/blogs/viewpost.aspx?bpid=117292&t=01000420523245711617 (example) implying that in the video I was referring to but couldn't find, odds are he was just being a smart-ass towards Bernanke (understandable).

And yes, they still haven't learned.
You realize that when I googled for the article I just gave, I found links stating that "Schiff was wrong"?