Peter Schiff has come under fire from a lot of economists for his predictions of hyperinflation, or at least very high inflation. I have tried to emphasize that Schiff is not an economist. Schiff is an investor with some knowledge of economic theory. This does not make him, however, a professional economist or anybody whose opinion on economic theory carries much weight.
This is not entirely fair, since he is not the only person to predict hyperinflation (unfortunately), but I have some evidence outside of this field to prove my point that Schiff is not an economist, Austrian or otherwise. The evidence comes from lewrockwell.org; I am surprised that the editor(s) decided to run such a poorly reasoned piece.
Large and persistent trade deficits were a primary reason that the U.S. economy imploded in the first place. If we fail to build an economy that can pay for imports with an equal number of exports, we will simply revisit the pain of last few years.
Despite some marginal improvement in manufacturing employment, new hires have been overwhelmingly in the service sector. We need a shrinking service sector and a shrinking trade deficit. As it is, newly employed Americans are spending money on imported products that America should be producing.
How did “large and persistent” trade deficits cause (in conjunction with other factors?) the economy to ” implode?”
With a globalized division of labor, why is it bad that other countries focus on labor-intensive manufacturing and the United States retool towards a growing service sector? In the 1870s, should have the United States put a stop to growth in manufacturing and instead focused on reviving the local agricultural sector (and by reviving, I mean returning to a labor-intensive agricultural technique, rather than a capital-intensive one)?
I am not that surprised that Schiff is making arguments like these. I am more surprised that an Austrian website like lewrockwell.org is publishing them.