« previous   next »

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


By HousingBoom   Follow   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 10:15am PST   21,912 views   242 comments
Watch (2)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike  

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.

« First     « Previous     Comments 203-242 of 242     Last »

mell   Fri, 5 Jul 2013, 12:56am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 203

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   Fri, 5 Jul 2013, 1:04am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 204

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 ;)

bgamall4   Fri, 5 Jul 2013, 3:36am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 205

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.

mell   Fri, 5 Jul 2013, 3:50am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 206

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   Fri, 5 Jul 2013, 5:29am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 207

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.

bgamall4   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 12:00am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 208

Rew says

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.

You sound like Joe Weisenthal. He said it was all good too. Of course, part time jobs and waiters were the driving force.

And as for tapering, it is the stock market that will likely be in flux. Bond yields will not rise that much more or the banks could be destroyed by their interest rate swaps business. I can't see Bernanke choosing main street health over the banks, can you?

indigenous   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 1:35am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 209

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

indigenous   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 5:32am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 210

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 6:00am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 211

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 6:20am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 212

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 7:20am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 213

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 7:27am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 214

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 7:33am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 215

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 7:37am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 216

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 7:38am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 217

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 7:41am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 218

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 7:52am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 219

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 9:35am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 220

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 9:44am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 221

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 9:52am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 222

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 10:54am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 223

And once again

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

iwog   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 10:59am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 224

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 11:00am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 225

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 11:18am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 226

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 12:38pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 227

Once again

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

deepcgi   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 1:12pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 228

“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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 3:21pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 229

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 3:23pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 230

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 5:27pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 231

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 10:47pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 232

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   Sat, 6 Jul 2013, 11:40pm PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 233

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   Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 12:45am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 234

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   Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 12:51am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 235

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   Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 12:55am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 236

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   Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 12:56am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 237

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   Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 1:02am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 238

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   Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 1:07am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 239

iwog says

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

You tell me

tatupu70   Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 1:08am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 240

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.

bgamall4   Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 8:08am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 241

indigenous says

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.

You already are defending Bush. The neocons spoke about a new Pearl Harbor in 2000. They got what they wanted, 9/11, in 2001.

Here, a neocon spoke about a history of false flags and suggested that we start a war with Iran, and hinted that it be through a false flag:

http://www.recourse-loans.com/2013/06/the-dreadful-context-surrounding.html

If Romney had been elected there is a strong probability that this former Cheney energy task force member would have gotten his false flag.

indigenous   Sun, 7 Jul 2013, 8:17am PDT   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 242

bgamall4 says

false flag.

what is a false flag?

« First     « Previous comments    

HousingBoom is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best of   about   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net