Marketdash
Back to News

Peter Schiff Says Bernie Sanders' AI Moratorium Is A War On Progress: 'Jobs Are The Cost, Not The Goal'

MarketDash Editorial Team
19 hours ago
Economist Peter Schiff fired back at Senator Bernie Sanders' proposal to halt new AI data centers, arguing that the plan attacks productivity and progress while missing the point about how technology actually benefits consumers.

The Great AI Jobs Debate

Economist Peter Schiff isn't buying what Bernie Sanders is selling when it comes to artificial intelligence. The Vermont senator recently called for a moratorium on new AI data centers, warning about threats to jobs, democracy, and public resources. Schiff's response? Sanders is waging war on productivity itself.

In a Thursday post on X, Schiff took aim at what he sees as Sanders' real motivation: concern that wealthy people "might get richer" rather than genuine worry about economic welfare. "Apparently, the real tragedy isn't poverty or scarcity, but the possibility that someone might profit while making everyone else's life easier," Schiff wrote.

Who Really Wins From AI?

Here's where Schiff's argument gets interesting. He contends that productivity gains from AI don't just pad corporate bottom lines or enrich investors. Instead, consumers come out ahead. "If AI raises profits by raising productivity, producing more and better goods at lower prices, then consumers are the real winners," he explained. Lower prices mean people need less labor to maintain their living standards, which Schiff sees as unambiguously good.

As for the narrative about AI-driven job losses? Schiff dismissed job preservation as an end in itself. "Jobs are not the goal. They're the cost," he said, arguing that employment exists primarily to produce goods and services, not as some kind of moral objective.

The economist pushed further, saying technological progress that reduces labor requirements should be celebrated, not feared. "When technology eliminates one job, it frees up labor to do something else," according to Schiff. In his view, this represents advancement rather than exploitation.

Musk Joins The Pile-On

Schiff wasn't the only prominent voice pushing back. Earlier this week, when Sanders called for halting new data center construction, Tesla Inc. (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk delivered his own sharp rebuke. "The takers like Bernie will eventually follow the makers, but they're cowards too and lack any sense of adventure, so they will wait until it is safe," Musk said.

Sanders, for his part, had framed the issue in sweeping terms. "AI and Robotics are the most transformative technologies in the history of humanity," the senator said, adding that they will impact "every man, woman and child" in the country.

The debate cuts to a fundamental question about technological change: Should we slow down innovation to protect existing jobs, or embrace disruption and trust that displaced workers will find new opportunities? Schiff clearly lands in the latter camp, viewing Sanders' moratorium proposal as prioritizing the visible costs of progress while ignoring its diffuse benefits.

Back to News

Peter Schiff Says Bernie Sanders' AI Moratorium Is A War On Progress: 'Jobs Are The Cost, Not The Goal'

MarketDash Editorial Team
19 hours ago
Economist Peter Schiff fired back at Senator Bernie Sanders' proposal to halt new AI data centers, arguing that the plan attacks productivity and progress while missing the point about how technology actually benefits consumers.

The Great AI Jobs Debate

Economist Peter Schiff isn't buying what Bernie Sanders is selling when it comes to artificial intelligence. The Vermont senator recently called for a moratorium on new AI data centers, warning about threats to jobs, democracy, and public resources. Schiff's response? Sanders is waging war on productivity itself.

In a Thursday post on X, Schiff took aim at what he sees as Sanders' real motivation: concern that wealthy people "might get richer" rather than genuine worry about economic welfare. "Apparently, the real tragedy isn't poverty or scarcity, but the possibility that someone might profit while making everyone else's life easier," Schiff wrote.

Who Really Wins From AI?

Here's where Schiff's argument gets interesting. He contends that productivity gains from AI don't just pad corporate bottom lines or enrich investors. Instead, consumers come out ahead. "If AI raises profits by raising productivity, producing more and better goods at lower prices, then consumers are the real winners," he explained. Lower prices mean people need less labor to maintain their living standards, which Schiff sees as unambiguously good.

As for the narrative about AI-driven job losses? Schiff dismissed job preservation as an end in itself. "Jobs are not the goal. They're the cost," he said, arguing that employment exists primarily to produce goods and services, not as some kind of moral objective.

The economist pushed further, saying technological progress that reduces labor requirements should be celebrated, not feared. "When technology eliminates one job, it frees up labor to do something else," according to Schiff. In his view, this represents advancement rather than exploitation.

Musk Joins The Pile-On

Schiff wasn't the only prominent voice pushing back. Earlier this week, when Sanders called for halting new data center construction, Tesla Inc. (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk delivered his own sharp rebuke. "The takers like Bernie will eventually follow the makers, but they're cowards too and lack any sense of adventure, so they will wait until it is safe," Musk said.

Sanders, for his part, had framed the issue in sweeping terms. "AI and Robotics are the most transformative technologies in the history of humanity," the senator said, adding that they will impact "every man, woman and child" in the country.

The debate cuts to a fundamental question about technological change: Should we slow down innovation to protect existing jobs, or embrace disruption and trust that displaced workers will find new opportunities? Schiff clearly lands in the latter camp, viewing Sanders' moratorium proposal as prioritizing the visible costs of progress while ignoring its diffuse benefits.