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

By HousingBoom   follow   Wed, 21 Nov 2012, 10:15am PST   31,833 views   229 comments   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink  

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

↑ Like (3)   ↓ Dislike

« First     « Previous     Comments 150-189 of 229     Next »     Last »

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (12)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 12:33am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 150

Truthfully your opinion that real estate is at massively inflated prices is dead wrong.

mell   befriend (8)   ignore (5)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 12:57am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 151

iwog says

Truthfully your opinion that real estate is at massively inflated prices is dead wrong.

The amount of new house owners defaulting does not seem to go well with that graph. You could argue that those are still ripple effects from the crisis, but I"m not buying it. While defaults have gone down, they will keep happening at a significant rate and could pick up again dramatically if rates rise.

RentingForHalfTheCost   befriend (8)   ignore (6)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 1:01am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 152

mell says

if rates rise.

You mean "when rates rise". Momma only has so much free money in that purse. Even in today's shell game economics, there will be accountability. Wait for it...

mell   befriend (8)   ignore (5)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 1:06am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 153

bgamall4 says

Schiff brags about being in the 1 percent, yet his 1 percent cronies are ruining America.

It takes two to to tango. If you look at last election, almost 100% voted for either Obama or Romney which is basically a continuation of the cheap credit policies benefiting those who already have huge leverage. The lambs keep bringing themselves to the slaughterhouse.

Goran_K   befriend (4)   ignore (2)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 1:07am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 154

bgamall4 says

House prices must decline to keep track with wages. Unless private equity wants to be in the landlord business for years and years

This is one of the things I am most interested in. How long will these major firms be willing to be "landlords" renting out shelter in low-end neighborhoods in the Sacramento burbs. I've already seen smaller firms exit the market, but maybe these major firms have more metal to keep going (aka cash).

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (12)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 1:16am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 155

mell says

The amount of new house owners defaulting does not seem to go well with that graph. You could argue that those are still ripple effects from the crisis, but I"m not buying it. While defaults have gone down, they will keep happening at a significant rate and could pick up again dramatically if rates rise.

Yup I argue those are ripple effects of the crisis. Lots of people are still upside down in homes they refuse to give up. My bankruptcy practice is right in the middle of this as I get people who come in every day who are willing to sacrifice almost everything to keep a home they are $100,000 upside down on. Then there are those who would love to refinance but they are still in credit jail from a bankruptcy or foreclosure or just irresponsible borrowing.

Our bubble was bush league anyway. If you want to see what might be in store for us, look at Canada:

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (12)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 1:19am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 156

There's nothing wrong with the housing affordability index. There is nothing involved with the calculation of this index that relies on NAR data other than price information that is confirmed independently by many other sources.

Anyone who wants to challenge it as inaccurate should probably give a reason why. (like that's gonna happen)

Goran_K   befriend (4)   ignore (2)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 1:21am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 157

bgamall4 says

Obama=lesser of two evils. Nothing more.

He still doesn't have a clue though. Obama is still operating under the misguided principal that home prices must rise (probably the same mentality that made him a bubble buyer in 2005).

So he may be the 'lesser' of two evils, but his underlying policy is still totally misguided, and completely wrong for fixing the housing market.

Ron Paul had the best strategy for fixing the economy in recent memory, and early polls showed that he had the best chance of beating Obama (conversely, Romney has always been shown to be a loser against Obama in any opinion poll).

It's a shame that Ron Paul was basically silenced by the media and swept aside. He was the only one who had a clue during the national debates.

Goran_K   befriend (4)   ignore (2)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 1:40am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 158

bgamall4 says

Ron Paul has some good ideas mixed in with some dreadful ideas. Libertarians believe in two failed ideas. One is they want racism to be a civil right, and some are just racist. Second, they believe the invisible hand of self interest will help society more than regulation. Turns out that in the housing bubble and crash that was proven false. Even Max Keiser thinks his libertarian friends are nuts for not wanting banking regulation.

Not sure why you believe libertarians are racist.

On the second note, if the Banks had been forced to eat their own medicine, then the idea actually would have worked in practice. Just like any private sector business, if you build losses, there is a natural free market reaction to your actions; you go out of business. Unfortunately, Obama gave them a safety net, so of course they can operate like criminals in a deregulated environment.

Goran_K   befriend (4)   ignore (2)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 1:43am PST   Share   Quote   Like (3)   Dislike (1)     Comment 159

underwaterman says

I think it is safe to assume version 2 where they now swoop in to buy the very foreclosed homes they caused in version 1 will not end well either, especially for the neighborhoods where they are concentrating like phoenix and atlanta. What happens when those homes depreciate and the rents fall? One guess. They are not going to stick around like a homeowner and try and make it work. They are going to dump the houses or abandon them and their shell LLCs just like they are doing now in foreclosures and blight communities.

That's actually what I am waiting for. Housing is so volatile right now that in one year you can have a 5% YOY gain, and the next a 7% YOY loss. These major firms are very performance oriented (I used to work directly face-to-face with them). If the market forces any sort of correction downward, I could see them exiting the market very quickly, and leaving the mom-and-pop speculators with the highest losses.

Goran_K   befriend (4)   ignore (2)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 3:23am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 160

You're taking the actions of individuals and applying it to an entire philosophy. Rush Limbaugh once said that "all criminals resemble Jesse Jackson". Rush Limbaugh claims to be a Christian.

Does that mean a core belief of Republicans and Christians is that black people are criminals? That's a ridiculous connection to make just like your assumption that all Libertarians are racist because of something Schiff said.

(also you took what Schiff said completely out of context, but we'll get to that later if you want to push the subject)

If you actually understood Libertarian doctrine, you would know that they genuinely see racism as a belief system that expresses itself only in the form of coercive government power. State-enforced discrimination is the only kind of discrimination. A libertarian by definition opposes discrimination because libertarians oppose the state. Racism is NOT a core belief of Libertarians. It works both ways, while they believe that the state should not enforce discrimination, they also believe that anti-discrimination movements like "affirmative action" should also be opposed (more of what Schiff was talking about).

Of course reactionary people often jump to conclusions about things they don't completely understand.

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (12)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 3:32am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 161

Billybigrig says

Listening to the NAR's recommendations on RE is like asking Jeffrey Dahmer for tips on table manners.

This isn't a recommendation from the NAR. This is a graphical representation of what anyone with a brain knows is true.

The cost of buying a home in the United States as a function of wages, home prices, and interest rates are at historic lows.

Bitching about the NAR doesn't change this. When you take interest rates from 6% to 3%, the price someone can pay for a home almost doubles.

Goran_K   befriend (4)   ignore (2)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 3:41am PST   Share   Quote   Like (3)   Dislike (1)     Comment 162

bgamall4 says

I wrote an ebook about libertarianism. The concept of voluntary relationships is similar to Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Yes, the only racism these perverts see is quotas. Racism as a civil right is a core belief of libertarianism. Racism like that of Rothbard may not be. But libertarianism attracts a lot of racist misfits because it allows for racism to be a civil right.

If it isn't racist to do so it is wacko. Libertarianism is wacko. That is the conclusion I come up with in my ebook. I have too many examples of libertarian leaders proving their wackiness.

It's not about quotas. Damn it, I hope you're kidding that you actually wrote a book about libertarians because you seem to misunderstand the very basics of the doctrine.

It's NOT about quotas. It IS about state enforced discrimination, and anti-discrimination. That is all. Anything else you have misunderstood on top is an addition to the doctrine that you have made in your own mind that doesn't exist. Ron Paul doesn't go around telling people to hate blacks and not do business with them. In fact one of his biggest supporting blocks was African Americans.

You yourself practice discrimination in your own life. Do you let pedophiles play with your kids? Do you want your family hanging out with gang members and drug dealers? No, you discriminate because you have a choice. What if the state enforced a quota that your neighborhood must allow at least 10% of the housing to be available for released pedophiles? I don't think you would really agree with that, and neither would libertarians.

Sure, some wacko could say "I don't want to serve blacks in my establishment", but that business person also gets the free market punishment of losing business from all black people, and those who sympathize with black people. They would soon go out of business because they tried to enact a faulty business model.

Conversely, saying someone should get into a top state school, even with lower scores than someone of a more represented race, to fill a quota, is a form of state enforced racism. The state is giving an opportunity to someone (and taking away one) simply based on the color of their skin and not merit.

bubblesitter   befriend (5)   ignore (3)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 4:19am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 163

Billybigrig says

iwog says

When you take interest rates from 6% to 3%, the price someone can pay for a home almost doubles.

Agreed:

When you take interest rates from 6% to 3%, the price someone can be "coerced " into paying for a home almost doubles.

On top of that double the property tax too until the owner lives in that place.

RentingForHalfTheCost   befriend (8)   ignore (6)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 4:22am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 164

iwog says

Anyone who wants to challenge it as inaccurate should probably give a reason why.

Lies from NAR's leader in June 2008. Nice pumping back then by NAR. Buy Buy Buy or you will be priced out forever!

RentingForHalfTheCost   befriend (8)   ignore (6)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 4:25am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 165

iwog says

Anyone who wants to challenge it as inaccurate should probably give a reason why.

A History Of Lies By The Chief Economists of the National Association of Realtors

Bellingham Bill   befriend (0)   ignore (3)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 4:28am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 166

$350,000 @ 6% is a $2300 all-in (PITI etc) outgo.

At 3% this payment pays off a ~$400,000 purchase.

Alternatively, looking at PITI less the P, I get:

$350,000 @ 6% is a $2000/mo cost of ownership, and $2000 @ 3% can support ~$500,000's debt service.

This latter case requires principal repayments to transfer into solid equity that doesn't disappear if & when interest rates go back up or other macro changes that affect valuations.

RentingForHalfTheCost   befriend (8)   ignore (6)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 4:39am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 167

Billybigrig says

iwog says

When you take interest rates from 6% to 3%, the price someone can pay for a home almost doubles.

Agreed:

When you take interest rates from 6% to 3%, the price someone can be "coerced " into paying for a home almost doubles.

Don't take it personal if you don't get the above. Even the great Ben Bernacke has trouble connecting the relationship between interest rates and home prices. It really is a giant shell game. Following the ball, following the ball, can you guess where it is? Who is to blame? Over there! Look a puppy!

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/03/22/bernanke-denies-fed-rate-policy-caused-housing-bust/

Bellingham Bill   befriend (0)   ignore (3)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 4:58am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 168

Thing is, there was a disconnect between Fed policy 2004-2006 and the housing market.

The Fed began raising interest rates in mid-2004, but the boom went on for another full year, and prices stabilized at the 2005 level for another year or so (the summer of 2006 was the beginning of the bust).

The Fed certainly caused the boom of 2002-2004. But the bubble of 2004-2006 was something else -- the suicide lending of teaser-rate 2 year ARMs, negative-am "pay option" loans, and outright fraud of people buying with no visible means of being able to pay other than future equity withdrawal.

THAT was the bubble of 2004-2006, not the Fed, and why the market crashed in 2007.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=d9j

shows the Fed fighting rising prices in 1999-2000, giving up in 2001, then letting their freak flag fly in 2002-2003.

The resulting tightening of 2006-2007 wasn't dramatic enough to cause the crash.

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (12)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 5:19am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 169

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Lies from NAR's leader in June 2008. Nice pumping back then by NAR. Buy Buy Buy or you will be priced out forever!

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the affordability index.

RentingForHalfTheCost   befriend (8)   ignore (6)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 6:48am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 170

iwog says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Lies from NAR's leader in June 2008. Nice pumping back then by NAR. Buy Buy Buy or you will be priced out forever!

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the affordability index.

It has everything to do with it. Once a liar always a liar. Personality traits are not fixable. You are born bad.

iwog   befriend (49)   ignore (12)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 10:34am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 171

RentingForHalfTheCost says

It has everything to do with it. Once a liar always a liar. Personality traits are not fixable. You are born bad.

You can calculate the affordability index without using any NAR data at all. You can use Case-Shiller data and come up with almost the exact same graph.

It's a function of wages, interest rates, and home prices. How can people be so blind to reality? You can easily find 3% mortgages now when 5 years ago they were 6%. You don't think this factors into affordability when making a home buying or renting decision????

mell   befriend (8)   ignore (5)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 12:37pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 172

bgamall4 says

Goran_K says

You yourself practice discrimination in your own life.

The more you write the more you prove my case. I try to avoid racial discrimination, however, you have the right to practice it in PRIVATE. The libertarians want the ability to practice it in PUBLIC BUSINESS.

That is unlawful and it should stay that way.

The freedom to discriminate/disassociate is eroding fast. Private clubs are being bombarded with hate when they discriminate. Business owners advocating marriage to stay between man and woman only as their PRIVATE opinion are being told by crony politicians that they are not welcome in "their" city and zoning and other laws are used to prevent the business. I may not agree with their views but I think a business owner should be able to convert his business into a "private club" with member fees and discriminate however the see fit. You see any ugly bitchez at hooters? Any old grannies? Any gay men serving your chicken wings? Don't think so. Furthermore there are tons of armchair liberals/progressives that hate every homophobic soul out there but as soon as their daughter starts dating a black guy (if they are white or vice versa) or an affordable housing project is announced in their neighborhood or next to their kids school, then all the tolerance goes out of the window instantly. I'd rather have a slightly homophobic pal who is honest about it (and I would likely debate him) than one of those armchair good-doers. Also, just because somebody advocates something fairly extreme like Schiff advocating extreme freedom for the business owner doesn't mean they themselves are racist or support racism, it just means that some principle in their political views is so strong that they cannot advocate prohibiting freedoms that could be abused because it would directly collide with their principles. For example you could be an advocate for welfare although you know that at any given amount of time there will be X amount of people who totally abuse the system because the alternative of no safety net for those in real need seems worse to you.

Kevin   befriend (0)   ignore (3)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 4:34pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 173

iwog says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

It has everything to do with it. Once a liar always a liar. Personality traits are not fixable. You are born bad.

You can calculate the affordability index without using any NAR data at all. You can use Case-Shiller data and come up with almost the exact same graph.

It's a function of wages, interest rates, and home prices. How can people be so blind to reality? You can easily find 3% mortgages now when 5 years ago they were 6%. You don't think this factors into affordability when making a home buying or renting decision????

Why are you even making this argument?

These guys are all talking in theoretical terms. They're making armchair economic projections and ignoring the reality on the ground.

Most people buy homes because they want to live in them. They'll stay for an average of 17 years (according to what I found googling it), and won't really be that concerned about resale.

The fact of the matter is that in most parts of the US, it's now cheaper to buy than to rent as long as you can qualify for the mortgage. It has been a very long time since the last time this was true.

Bigsby   befriend (0)   ignore (14)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 7:27pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 174

Kevin says

They'll stay for an average of 17 years (according to what I found googling it), and won't really be that concerned about resale.

I suspect you're way off the mark with that figure.

Goran_K   befriend (4)   ignore (2)   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 10:28pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 175

17 years is extremely off the mark, by over a decade.

TechGromit   befriend (6)   ignore (1)   Tue, 27 Nov 2012, 12:22am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 176

iwog says

Lots of people are still upside down in homes they refuse to give up.

I would think this is a good thing. if everyone looked at housing as an investment and once there investment was losing money, dump it, the banks would be in a far worse position, requiring another round or two of bailout to keep them from collapsing and dragging our economy down with them.