Noah- I Just listened to your "interview" on the Peter Schiff show from yesterday-- what a joke!
In the first segment you tried to be all "nice guy", and attempted to claim that you didn't mean what you said in the article, that you were trying to be fair and balanced, that Schiff's picture at the top of the article was a mistake, it was against your wishes, etc. Schiff quickly dispelled those claims, and, frankly, made you look rather foolish.
In the second segment you attempted to argue that Schiff has actually been losing money, while simultaneously being forced to admit that you had no evidence to support that. Schiff absolutely took you to school, on a point-by-point basis, to which you really had nothing to offer in response.
Then in the third segment-- I assume realizing that you were getting the crap kicked out of you-- you started using the age-old, classic "I'll just ramble incessantly and emotionally and not let my opponent get a word in edgewise-- if I amp up the emotion, my emotiveness will override their logic." This made you look even more foolish than you did before.
And about this article: it's a mess. Try having a thesis before you start writing. Instead, you have at least four:
Are you complaining that Schiff is dishonest? Are you claiming that nobody really understands anything so you shouldn't trust anyone with your investments? Are you claiming that it makes no sense that Hedlock and Schiff disagree? Are you claiming that Austrian economics is some sort of a joke?
Just where the heck are you even going with this article? It's all over the place.
And that doesn't even get to the hopeless oversimplifications and straw-manning you're engaging in, really illustrating that you fundamentally don't understand what Schiff or Hedlock are actually saying.
I give your article a D, and your interview an F. Try better next time.
In the first segment you tried to be all "nice guy", and attempted to claim that you didn't mean what you said in the article, that you were trying to be fair and balanced, that Schiff's picture at the top of the article was a mistake, it was against your wishes, etc. Schiff quickly dispelled those claims, and, frankly, made you look rather foolish.
In the second segment you attempted to argue that Schiff has actually been losing money, while simultaneously being forced to admit that you had no evidence to support that. Schiff absolutely took you to school, on a point-by-point basis, to which you really had nothing to offer in response.
Then in the third segment-- I assume realizing that you were getting the crap kicked out of you-- you started using the age-old, classic "I'll just ramble incessantly and emotionally and not let my opponent get a word in edgewise-- if I amp up the emotion, my emotiveness will override their logic." This made you look even more foolish than you did before.
And about this article: it's a mess. Try having a thesis before you start writing. Instead, you have at least four:
Are you complaining that Schiff is dishonest? Are you claiming that nobody really understands anything so you shouldn't trust anyone with your investments? Are you claiming that it makes no sense that Hedlock and Schiff disagree? Are you claiming that Austrian economics is some sort of a joke?
Just where the heck are you even going with this article? It's all over the place.
And that doesn't even get to the hopeless oversimplifications and straw-manning you're engaging in, really illustrating that you fundamentally don't understand what Schiff or Hedlock are actually saying.
I give your article a D, and your interview an F. Try better next time.