patrick.net

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. :)

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! ;)

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 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.. ;)

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

And once again

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

Once again

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

“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.

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)

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?

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 says

false flag.

what is a false flag?