Peter Schiff – The coming 2013 – 2014 U.S. crash will be worse than 2008

By HousingBoom   follow   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 10:15am PST   ↑ Like (3)   ↓ Dislike   34,910 views   229 comments   Watch (1)   Share   Quote  

http://riehlworldview.com/2012/07/video-peter-schiff-the-coming-2013-2014-us-crash-will-be-worse-than-2008-and-europe.html

If you listen to Schiff and buy what's he's saying, the policies of the Obama administration are making an already bad situation much worse, setting us up for calamity and the coming crash, whether in 2013 or 2014, or a bit further out, will be beyond anything we've seen recently.

#politics

« First     « Previous     Comments 190-229 of 229     Last »

Mark D   befriend (0)   ignore (1)   Tue, 27 Nov 2012, 1:21pm PST   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 190

who would be concerned with cracks in the floor of the house if they had no interest in buying the house whatsoever?

Goran_K says

Based on comps, if this home were fully remodeled, it might sell in the $640k to $660k range. It does back to Culver, but it's also 2,200 sqft on a single story plan (very hard to get in Irvine).

So based on the $524,900 list price + $80,000 out of pocket expenses to remodel, it looks like a good deal.

BUT....

"The cracks from the floor, going all the way to the ceiling are worrisome. Foundation issues always give me pause. The bank said they fixed it, but who knows? Will this home even get traditional financing? I'd love to see the inspection report on this house if someone does try to buy it. I have a feeling that there is some costly repairs I may be missing from my cursory tour last weekend

bubblesitter   befriend (5)   ignore (3)   Thu, 29 Nov 2012, 11:58pm PST   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 191

Billybigrig says

Discussions with R.E. Shills about over inflated prices can and is most certainly redundant and meaningless...

Try the ignore function,if it gets too much. It works really well.

E-man   befriend (29)   ignore (1)   Thu, 4 Jul 2013, 9:44pm PDT   Like (3)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 192

robertoaribas says

Peter said the same thing in 2010, and 2011, but that didn't stop him from repeating it in 2012!

It also didn't stop his cult like followers from believing him!

Just keep pushing the date out, he will eventually be correct. Not sure if I would still be alive and a renter waiting for the impending crash. :)

mell   befriend (8)   ignore (5)   Fri, 5 Jul 2013, 12:56am PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 193

robertoaribas says

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/crash-proof-peter-d-schiff/1112272915?ean=9781118038932

and here he is selling his book in 2010...

so what we have, is a charlatan with a terrible track record, selling a book, and investment program... but as demonstrated on this thread, there is a sucker born every minute!

You mean like he came on record on public TV in 2008 and was wrong? Oh wait! He was right! ;)

mell   befriend (8)   ignore (5)   Fri, 5 Jul 2013, 1:04am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 194

E-man says

robertoaribas says

Peter said the same thing in 2010, and 2011, but that didn't stop him from repeating it in 2012!

It also didn't stop his cult like followers from believing him!

Just keep pushing the date out, he will eventually be correct. Not sure if I would still be alive and a renter waiting for the impending crash. :)

You know, being a couple of years off is still a good warning for the majority who overstretched themselves in an area that is not that liquid like housing. I think you will still be alive for his predicted debt crisis,, but you don't need to be Peter Schiff to figure out that there will be one ;)

mell   befriend (8)   ignore (5)   Fri, 5 Jul 2013, 3:50am PDT   Like (2)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 195

bgamall4 says

mell says

You mean like he came on record on public TV in 2008 and was wrong? Oh wait! He was right! ;)

We all knew there was a housing bubble in 2005. Schiff was late to the prediction party. I knew there was a massive inventory build in Reno, NV in June, 2005.

Sure, I have never said that he makes the best calls. But it takes cojones to come on public TV warning about the crash, being laughed in the face while making a correct prediction (being late to the party or not) vs being a patnet poster croaking about the wrong calls of people they don't like after the fact ;) Plus, I am pretty sure he underestimated how massive (and criminal) the fed and government intervention would be. I know I did, looking back, instead of pouring a "just" sizeable amount into the market I would have leveraged myself to the hilt going all long financials! Oh wait, I pledged not to go long TBTFs.. ;)

Rew   befriend (1)   ignore (3)   Fri, 5 Jul 2013, 5:29am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 196

Economic news from Bloomberg today:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-05/treasuries-extend-drop-as-payrolls-growth-supports-fed-tapering.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-05/bernanke-seen-holding-to-qe-tapering-plan-after-payrolls-report.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-05/dollar-climbs-as-u-s-employers-add-more-workers-than-forecast.html

Investors tied to the QE juice have to find a new game in town soon, so there will be some wiggles, but this is all very positive/good.

indigenous   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 1:35am PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 197

What Schiff is saying makes sense. The problem is the when part.

indigenous   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 5:32am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 198

robertoaribas says

yes. His predictions are great, unless you want to see them actually happen!!!

They do happen. Would you say the Keynesians are better at predicting when or for the mater what?

indigenous   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 6:00am PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 199

robertoaribas says

keynesian prediction?

It is hard to discern one because Krugman types ambiguous. The one that comes to mind immediately is they predicted that after WWII if the government did not keep spending the great depression would continue. They were 180 deg wrong.

The other thought would be that booms and depressions could be leveled out. In the process of trying to accomplish this is what prolongs or causes the bubbles.

I have read some about Keynesian economics in reference to Monetarism and Austrian economics. It is does not make sense and more importantly practicing it is a liability to the economy.

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (9)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 6:20am PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 200

indigenous says

It is hard to discern one because Krugman types ambiguous. The one that comes to mind immediately is they predicted that after WWII if the government did not keep spending the great depression would continue. They were 180 deg wrong.

This is a lie.

indigenous says

The other thought would be that booms and depressions could be leveled out. In the process of trying to accomplish this is what prolongs or causes the bubbles.

They were leveled out and between 1940 and 2008 we hadn't had a single depression and between 1940 and 1980 we hadn't had a single asset bubble. Between 1940 and the mid 1980s we also hadn't had a systemic banking crisis.

Your stupid free-market cult destroyed it all starting with Reagan.

indigenous says

I have read some about Keynesian economics in reference to Monetarism and Austrian economics. It is does not make sense and more importantly practicing it is a liability to the economy.

This is a lie. You've been asked repeatedly to define what Keynesianism is and you've failed over and over and over and over again. You haven't once given any indication you even know what the term means.

indigenous   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 7:20am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 201

iwog says

indigenous says

It is hard to discern one because Krugman types ambiguous. The one that comes to mind immediately is they predicted that after WWII if the government did not keep spending the great depression would continue. They were 180 deg wrong.

This is a lie.

Nope them is the facts

iwog says

indigenous says

The other thought would be that booms and depressions could be leveled out. In the process of trying to accomplish this is what prolongs or causes the bubbles.

They were leveled out and between 1940 and 2008 we hadn't had a single depression and between 1940 and 1980 we hadn't had a single asset bubble. Between 1940 and the mid 1980s we also hadn't had a systemic banking crisis.

Gee du yu think it mighta had sumptin to du with the dollar being tied to gold?

iwog says

Your stupid free-market cult destroyed it all starting with Reagan.

Yet your own Krugman calls Reagan a Keynesian? go figure?

iwog says

You've been asked repeatedly to define what Keynesianism is and you've failed over and over and over and over again.

The main thing to know about it is that it says that the economy can be controlled by the government. It can't be. The second thing to know about Keynesian economics is that politicians love it because it gives them an excuse to spend money.

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (9)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 7:27am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 202

indigenous says

Nope them is the facts

You're supposed to be embarrassed enough to show some proof that those are the facts, not just say they are. Seriously wtf is wrong with you?

indigenous says

Gee du yu think it mighta had sumptin to du with the dollar being tied to gold?

The dollar wasn't tied to gold. We left the gold standard in 1933. The government and the federal reserve (yes both) printed as much fiat currency as they wanted.

This is another instance of your ignorance on general economics.

indigenous says

Yet your own Krugman calls Reagan a Keynesian? go figure?

He was a Keynesian. Reagan's sin was that he removed economic borders and made the tax code regressive. The fact he loved deficit spending doesn't change any of it.

Again it appears you have no fucking clue what a Keynesian is.

indigenous says

The main thing to know about it is that it says that the economy can be controlled by the government. It can't be.

Right.....we'll just take your word for it. It's not like you're ignorant about economics or anything.

indigenous says

The second thing to know about Keynesian economics is that politicians love it because it gives them an excuse to spend money.

Case in point. Keynes advocated deficit spending during recession and paying it back during boom periods. In other words, you're taking a position that is half black and half white and trying to convince people it's 100% white. It's stupid, it's reckless, it's fucking retarded, but you do it anyway.

Why is that?

indigenous   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 7:33am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 203

iwog says

You're supposed to be embarrassed enough to show some proof that those are the facts, not just say they are. Seriously wtf is wrong with you?

It is easily verified and I have posted here before

iwog says

The dollar wasn't tied to gold. We left the gold standard in 1933. The government and the federal reserve (yes both) printed as much fiat currency as they wanted.

This is another instance of your ignorance on general economics.

It was through Bretton Wood

iwog says

The fact he loved deficit spending doesn't change any of it.

That was Tip O'Neil

iwog says

Case in point. Keynes advocated deficit spending during recession and paying it back during boom periods.

That has never occurred.

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (9)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 7:37am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 204

indigenous says

It is easily verified and I have posted here before

If it's so easily verified, why didn't you simply link something and verify it? Again WTF is wrong with you?

indigenous says

It was through Bretton Wood

1. You have absolutely no idea what Bretton Wood is.
2. Bretton Wood only applied to international settlements. It had no ability whatsoever to back currency held by Americans and in fact fiat currency was printed in such great numbers that Bretton Wood collapsed after our trade deficit grew.

indigenous says

That was Tip O'Neil

I find this to be one of the most vile and disgusting of your childish views on government. You simultaneously believe the House under Reagan was responsible for all government spending while also believing Obama is responsible for all government spending in 2013 under the exact same circumstances. It defines your idiocy.

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (9)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 7:38am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 205

indigenous says

That has never occurred.

As I said originally. You have no idea what Kenysianism is. I might also add that again you're proving yourself ignorant of history too since it occurred under Clinton.

indigenous   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 7:41am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 206

iwog says

1. You have absolutely no idea what Bretton Wood is.

2. Bretton Wood only applied to international settlements. It had no ability whatsoever to back currency held by Americans and in fact fiat currency was printed in such great numbers that Bretton Wood collapsed after our trade deficit grew.

Then why did the spending hockey stick after dick took the U.S. out of Bretton Wood?iwog says

I find this to be one of the most vile and disgusting of your childish views on government. You simultaneously believe the House under Reagan was responsible for all government spending while also believing Obama is responsible for all government spending in 2013 under the exact same circumstances. It defines your idiocy.

Gees Iwog don't hurt yourself

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (9)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 7:52am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 207

indigenous says

Then why did the spending hockey stick after dick took the U.S. out of Bretton Wood?

You mean why does your fantasy about a spending hockey stick pretend to take us out of Bretton Wood?

I'll say it again......you will never understand the economy until you get your head out of your ass and stop making up facts.

Here is what morons call a hockey stick:

indigenous   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 9:35am PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 208

iwog says

Here is what morons call a hockey stick:

That is not a hockey stick. The thing that is important about spending is how much debt it creates. This is as graph that shows the hockey stick I'm talking about.

mell   befriend (8)   ignore (5)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 9:44am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 209

indigenous says

iwog says

Case in point. Keynes advocated deficit spending during recession and paying it back during boom periods.

That has never occurred.

True. It's like giving addicts twice the drugs if they promise to consume half at a later point.

indigenous   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 9:52am PDT   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 210

robertoaribas says

Under clinton we had a surplus

Yes not that Clinton had anything to do with it.

robertoaribas says

Had it not been for the idiotic bush tax cuts

We have a spending problem.

The war was BS, but at the same time when you have N.Y. bombed you have to do something. Not that I'm going to defend Bush.

The biggest contributor to the current depression was the CRA, and the government spending behind it.

indigenous   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 10:54am PDT   Like   Dislike (1)     Share   Quote   Comment 211

And once again

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cricket+noise&mid=A67C3DCD093883F18C8AA67C3DCD093883F18C8A&view=detail&FORM=VIRE3

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (9)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 10:59am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 212

indigenous says

Then why did the spending hockey stick after dick took the U.S. out of Bretton Wood?

Then he posts a graph of debt (not spending) showing a hockey stick that starts when George Bush took office.

THEN he types:

indigenous says

That is not a hockey stick. The thing that is important about spending is how much debt it creates. This is as graph that shows the hockey stick I'm talking about.

1. He makes a point about spending that is grossly wrong.
2. He posts a graph about debt instead of spending.
3. He doesn't comprehend that debt is revenue minus expense. Meaning the "hockey stick" can 100% be attributed to the Bush tax cuts.
4. He also leaves out that debt stopped growing under Clinton and then took off under a 100% Republican government.
5. He completely forgets that he was attempting to make a point about leaving Bretton Woods in 1971. There was no "hockey stick" starting in 1971, in fact his "hockey stick" doesn't occur until decades later.

He likes his own post, apparently agreeing that he's brilliant.

Unfrickenbelievable. You can't make this stuff up.

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (9)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 11:00am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 213

indigenous says

And once again

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cricket+noise&mid=A67C3DCD093883F18C8AA67C3DCD093883F18C8A&view=detail&FORM=VIRE3

You're a troll who keeps proving over and over and over again you don't know what you're talking about.

indigenous   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 11:18am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 214

iwog says

Then he posts a graph of debt (not spending) showing a hockey stick that starts when George Bush took office.

Say what?

iwog says

3. He doesn't comprehend that debt is revenue minus expense. Meaning the "hockey stick" can 100% be attributed to the Bush tax cuts.

What is debt is what is owed, very simple. For the last 40 years that is borrowed money.

iwog says

4. He also leaves out that debt stopped growing under Clinton and then took off under a 100% Republican government.

The budget is created in Congress. When there has been more spending it is attributed to a democrat controlled congress, Tip O'Neil during Reagan's office, Pelosi under Obama, Gingrich under Clinton.

iwog says

5. He completely forgets that he was attempting to make a point about leaving Bretton Woods in 1971. There was no "hockey stick" starting in 1971, in fact his "hockey stick" doesn't occur until decades later.

Look at the graph again notice it start in 1971, that is not a coincidence.

iwog says

He likes his own post, apparently agreeing that he's brilliant.

It is what I see. Anyone who start believing there own PR is a dumb ass, I prefer to see it as it is.

But I think I might start calling you Barney Fife

indigenous   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 12:38pm PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 215

Once again

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cricket+noise&mid=C87A10F0D2CB9569C39CC87A10F0D2CB9569C39C&view=detail&FORM=VIRE5

deepcgi   befriend (0)   ignore (0)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 1:12pm PDT   Like (1)   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 216

“Buffett once pointed out that during the years 1964-1982, the stock market went nowhere, even though GDP quintupled. But from 1982-1998, the stock market went up twentyfold, while GDP barely tripled. There are lots of reasons to explain market moves. GDP isn’t one of them."

GDP is a meaningless metric. It is much like the way mathematics has become equated with science in our time. Mathematical proofs are not scientific fact. If Xeno walks halfway to the wall again and again, mathematically he never reaches the wall. In reality he does...at Plank Length. Keep staring at the graphs of gov spending and GDP and you're guaranteed to break your nose as you walk straight into a wall.

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (9)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 3:21pm PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 217

indigenous says

The budget is created in Congress. When there has been more spending it is attributed to a democrat controlled congress, Tip O'Neil during Reagan's office, Pelosi under Obama, Gingrich under Clinton.

You're kidding right? The biggest spending spree in history, one that took Clinton's surplus and turned it into a trillion dollars per year of debt, was the first six years of the Bush administration when Republicans ran everything.

Besides the Democrats didn't control congress under Reagan you nitwit. The Senate was in Republican hands for 6 of the 8 years. You're essentially saying the Democrats who only ran the house dominated both the Senate and the White House while Reagan was president. It's fucking stupid which is why I call you on it.

You are completely off your rocker with no idea what actual history is.

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (9)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 3:23pm PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 218

indigenous says

Look at the graph again notice it start in 1971, that is not a coincidence.

ROFLOL......obviously the graph started in 1971 so that means something important. It doesn't contain 1968 data. Right? RIGHT?!?

indigenous   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 5:27pm PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 219

iwog says

You're kidding right? The biggest spending spree in history, one that took Clinton's surplus and turned it into a trillion dollars per year of debt, was the first six years of the Bush administration when Republicans ran everything.

There was a war...

iwog says

Besides the Democrats didn't control congress under Reagan you nitwit. The Senate was in Republican hands for 6 of the 8 years. You're essentially saying the Democrats who only ran the house dominated both the Senate and the White House while Reagan was president. It's fucking stupid which is why I call you on it.

No Mr Fife, the budget comes from congress of which O'Neill was the speaker which means that it was controlled by the democrats during all of the Regan's term.

iwog says

ROFLOL......obviously the graph started in 1971 so that means something important. It doesn't contain 1968 data. Right? RIGHT?!?

The graph started up in 1971

Good night Barney

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (13)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 10:47pm PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 220

indigenous says

No Mr Fife, the budget comes from congress of which O'Neill was the speaker
which means that it was controlled by the democrats during all of the Regan's
term.

Just for the record--there is no such position as Speaker of the Congress. O'Neill was Speaker of the House and, as such, had absolutely no power over the Senate (the other branch of Congress)

indigenous   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 11:40pm PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 221

tatupu70 says

Just for the record--there is no such position as Speaker of the Congress. O'Neill was Speaker of the House and, as such, had absolutely no power over the Senate (the other branch of Congress)

The house is where the budget comes from. The 3rd most powerful person is DC is the speaker of the house. Remember Pelosi is the one who rammed Obama care through?

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (9)   Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 12:45am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 222

indigenous says

The house is where the budget comes from. The 3rd most powerful person is DC is the speaker of the house. Remember Pelosi is the one who rammed Obama care through?

We're learning a lot here. Apparently the speaker of the House can create and pass a budget all by himself. Civics 101.

indigenous   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 12:51am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 223

iwog says

We're learning a lot here. Apparently the speaker of the House can create and pass a budget all by himself. Civics 101.

The 3rd most powerful person on the beltway has a lot to do with it. Hardly newsworthy.

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (9)   Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 12:55am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 224

indigenous says

The 3rd most powerful person on the beltway has a lot to do with it. Hardly newsworthy.

You're using "3rd most powerful person" like a baby would with absolutely no understanding of what it means.

Explain why John Boehner doesn't simply pass his budget like Tip O'Neil was able to do.

indigenous   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 12:56am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 225

iwog says

Explain why John Boehner doesn't simply pass his budget like Tip O'Neil was able to do.

He has with the sequester

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (9)   Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 1:02am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 226

indigenous says

iwog says

Explain why John Boehner doesn't simply pass his budget like Tip O'Neil was able to do.

He has with the sequester

Wow......I did not know that!!!!!! So we've got a budget now?

indigenous   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 1:07am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 227

iwog says

Wow......I did not know that!!!!!! So we've got a budget now?

You tell me

tatupu70   befriend (3)   ignore (13)   Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 1:08am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 228

indigenous says

The 3rd most powerful person is DC is the speaker of the house

I'm assuming you are using the Presidential Succession Act as the basis for "power". I don't think that's a good judge of power. Biden is definitely NOT the 2nd most powerful person in Washington.

Regardless, you need a quick refresher on checks and balances. A budget must be approved by both the House and Senate before being signed by the President.

indigenous   befriend (0)   ignore (7)   Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 8:17am PDT   Like   Dislike     Share   Quote   Comment 229

bgamall4 says

false flag.

what is a false flag?

« First     « Previous comments    

Watch comments by email

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best comments   about   source code  

#housing   #investing   #politics   #economics   #humor  
please recommend patrick.net to your friends