« previous   politics   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   23,479 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 163-202 of 242     Next »     Last »

bgamall4   befriend   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 2:47am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 163

Goran_K says

Not sure why you believe libertarians are racist.

You are kidding me right? Schiff stated that a restaurant owner should have the right to refuse service based on race. That at least is a call for racism to be a civil right.

Rothbard was an out and out racist. He rejected sending the blacks back to Africa only because it would cost too much.

Oh, and Rand Paul opposed the civil rights act of 1964 until he got flack for his position. You don't know much about the real libertarians. Voluntary relationships is a fundamental assumption of their godless religion.

Goran_K   befriend   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 3:23am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 164

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.

bgamall4   befriend   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 3:29am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 165

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.

iwog   befriend   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 3:32am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 166

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   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 3:41am PST   Share   Quote   Like (3)   Dislike (1)     Comment 167

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.

bgamall4   befriend   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 3:58am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 168

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.

bubblesitter   befriend   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 4:19am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 169

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   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 4:22am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 170

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   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 4:25am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 171

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   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 4:28am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 172

$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   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 4:39am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 173

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   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 4:58am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 174

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   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 5:19am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 175

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   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 6:48am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 176

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   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 10:34am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 177

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????

bgamall4   befriend   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 11:55am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 178

I remember David Lereah, NAR's former liar, come on CNBC every day saying real estate always goes up. When it softened he said, every day, that it would turn around in a few months. We would be turning the corner. Always turning the corner.

I used to laugh. He quit in disgrace. He predicted the housing bubble would go on for many years. It didn't. He even sold a boatload of books predicting these things that the crash disproved.

mell   befriend   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 12:37pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 179

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   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 4:34pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 180

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   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 7:27pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 181

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   ignore   Mon, 26 Nov 2012, 10:28pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 182

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

TechGromit   befriend   ignore   Tue, 27 Nov 2012, 12:22am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 183

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.

Goran_K   befriend   ignore   Tue, 27 Nov 2012, 1:22am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 184

Yes, I hope those people keep putting their money into an over priced home they are barely hanging onto. Debt servitude should teach them a good lesson over the next 10 years or so.

Kevin   befriend   ignore   Tue, 27 Nov 2012, 2:21am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 185

Goran_K says

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

Ownership rates are parabolic. 40% of people are at least 15 years at the same place and 40% are less than 3 years. The average amongst people who aren't just 'house hopping' is 17 years.

Goran_K   befriend   ignore   Tue, 27 Nov 2012, 3:58am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 186

Kevin says

Ownership rates are parabolic. 40% of people are at least 15 years at the same place and 40% are less than 3 years. The average amongst people who aren't just 'house hopping' is 17 years.

Why don't you just admit you were wrong on your original point instead of posting evasive garbage like that?

Cheeseus Sonofdog   befriend   ignore   Tue, 27 Nov 2012, 7:23am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 187

Libertarians believe in discrimination by the individual. Discrimination is the core concept of liberty. It is when the individual chooses among all options and rejects the other options for any reason, even if ignorantly based on racial criteria.

@bgamall4 may like the government giving us but one option and forcing it on us, or face oppression, but I don't. @bgamall4 is a hypocrite. He discriminates every day. When he bought his new car, you can bet he chose what color it was. Perhaps he picked a black car. That means he rejected every other color. He picked his car based solely on its color and liked that choice. But with his utopian world, it would be government only allowing him to buy a white car, since black absorbs heat and causes global warming. @bgamall4 didn't allow the government to pick his spouse. He chose her and discriminated against every other woman. @bgamall4 picked his friends and discriminated against all others. He chooses who he lets inside of his living room. Discrimination! And when bgamall4 goes to his favored religious institution, you can bet he would have an issue if some muslims came in and started wailing in the aisle or a pack of satanists started burning a cross on stage. In fact, I bet bgamall4 would call the cops and have them arrested. Discrimination. And when bgamall4 registered to vote, I am pretty sure he discriminated against the other political party.

See, the issue is that we should all be allowed to discriminate. As long as we don't physically harm another it is liberty. Pretending that humans can all love one another and just sing Kumbayah doesn't work. It creates tension. We need to get to a point where we can each tolerate anothers opinion. Yeah, that opinion may be arrogant or ignorant. While Libertarians think a private business should be allowed to turn away a customer for any reason, it doesn't mean they are racists. In fact, they would be the first ones to have an issue with state sanctioned racism. They stand against state segregation as well as affirmative action. Knowing both are force upon all individuals. They don't want government telling blacks they can't vote, but would allow a private college to reject them as long as they get no government funding. Just because one believes in liberty doesn't mean they think ones choice is righteous over another. It doesn't mean because that choice is availble they would partake of it. Many Libertarians want to legalize drugs and prostitution, though they may be married for 30 years and never even had a cup of coffee. They know that choice should be up to the indivdual to choose. If the individual makes a bad choice then it is personal responsibility which then comes into play. Government shouldn't be forcing that individual to make a choice. They should only be there to protect another individual when the first individual neglected to take personal responsibility for harm done.

Goran_K   befriend   ignore   Tue, 27 Nov 2012, 7:45am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 188

@Cheeseus Sonofdog, thank you for your post. You obviously understand libertarianism.

DukeLaw   befriend   ignore   Tue, 27 Nov 2012, 8:41am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 189

The libertarian who is happily engaged expounding his political philosophy in the full glory of his convictions is almost sure to be brought short by one unfailing gambit of the statist. As the libertarian is denouncing public education or the Post Office, or refers to taxation as legalized robbery, the statist invariably challenges. "Well, then are you an anarchist?" The libertarian is reduced to sputtering "No, no, of course I'm not an anarchist." "Well, then, what governmental measures do you favor? What type of taxes do you wish to impose?" The statist has irretrievably gained the offensive, and, having no answer to the first question, the libertarian finds himself surrendering his case.

http://mises.org/daily/2801

In the 1950s and still relevant today.