Think the economy was bad when Obama took over? It will be worse in 4 years:link

[FaninAma]

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/post-election-sell-off-obama-says-peter-schiff-193319517.html

[XingTheRubicon]

October 2014....right around there, everything goes to hell. May or so 2015, the bottom. Start buying then.

Not much else to do.

[cleller]

I think Schiff is bearish on the US, and is promoting metals and commodities. He called the 2008 collapse, then predicted an inflation problem that never developed.
Europe has been in the headlines for the last year. Its no coincidence that the markets dropped due to Obama's election. Since he's not knowledgeable in economics, he correctly has let Bernanke and Geitner handle everything. He has no ideas, and they have used all of their ideas. With nothing new to hope for to help the markets, they sold off some.

[FaninAma]

I think Schiff is bearish on the US, and is promoting metals and commodities. He called the 2008 collapse, then predicted an inflation problem that never developed.
Europe has been in the headlines for the last year. Its no coincidence that the markets dropped due to Obama's election. Since he's not knowledgeable in economics, he correctly has let Bernanke and Geitner handle everything. He has no ideas, and they
have used all of their ideas. With nothing new to hope for to help the markets, they sold off some.

You don't think there has been food and energy inflation? You need to do a little more research. There is a worldwide food crisis currently because of food price increases. And consider the energy price increase has happened despite a slowing world economy. Your conclusions are wishful thinking.....the same thing the electorate engaged in on Tuesday night.

[JohnnyMack]

While I enjoy Peter Schiff, remember he's got an agenda. He wants to sell his books.

[FaninAma]

While I enjoy Peter Schiff, remember he's got an agenda. He wants to sell his books.

So tell us why you think he is wrong instead of an ad hominem attack on his credibility. Do you really think the problems plaguing Europe can't reach this country?

[kevpks]

So tell us why you think he is wrong instead of an ad hominem attack on his credibility. Do you really think the problems plaguing Europe can't reach this country?

Maybe the problems of the Eurozone as a whole but I hate the comparisons of the US and Greece (not in the article but on this board and elsewhere). The countries and economies have nothing in common. I would say that Obama critics are probably exaggerating the long term impact of another four years. I'm worried about the problems in Europe reaching the US but my concerns have nothing to do with Obama being in office. Bush oversaw a pretty ****ty economy too.

There has been recovery. It's been too slow and unsteady but has all of this recovery only occurred because people were confident Obama would lose? Maybe someone could specifically and reasonably describe the negative impact four more years of Obama will have on the economy.

[cleller]

You don't think there has been food and energy inflation? You need to do a little more research. There is a worldwide food crisis currently because of food price increases. And consider the energy price increase has happened despite a slowing world economy. Your conclusions are wishful thinking.....the same thing the electorate engaged in on Tuesday night.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not promoting anything Obama is selling.I'm just saying that I'd pick Geitner and Bernanke running the economic issues than Obama.
Schiff had predicted that by now we'd have monetary inflation that would force the Fed to raise rates, and might still be uncontrolled. From 2009:

SCHIFF: You know, look, I know inflation is going to get worse in 2010. Whether it’s going to run out of control or it’s going to take until 2011 or 2012, but I know we’re going to have a major currency crisis coming soon. It’s going to dwarf the financial crisis and it’s going to send consumer prices absolutely ballistic, as well as interest rates and unemployment.
(end)

So that's the prediction I meant never developed. Now he's says it has just been delayed, and he may be right. Just have to wait and see.

[hawaii 5-0]

I've been reading a lot of other bold predictions on this Bored.

Many didn't quite come to pass.

5-0

[SoonerorLater]

I've been reading a lot of other bold predictions on this Bored.

Many didn't quite come to pass.

5-0


A lot of the reason it hasn't all come to pass at least inflation-wise (and there is inflation) is because a lot of the monetized debt is warehoused on the Feds Balance Sheet. Now that it is there at some point they will have to do something and none of the choices are good. We don't even want to think what will happen if foreign dollar assets come home to roost.

[hawaii 5-0]

I sure don't predict the upcoming changes will be easy to swallow.

Lots of people and programs have had it easy for a long time and now it's gonna be time to pay the Piper.

5-0

[JohnnyMack]

So tell us why you think he is wrong instead of an ad hominem attack on his credibility. Do you really think the problems plaguing Europe can't reach this country?

Sorry, I typed that reply quickly this morning and didn't have time to flesh it out.

I do think anyone who is an analyst/author like he is has a certain agenda driving what he or she is promoting. This isn't limited to Schiff obviously. And like I said, I think he's good for the overall discussion about why it is that Wall Street is such a disaster, but he's made so many predictions that just haven't come to fruition. He just keeps saying things like he's some sort of fiscal Nostradamus and when he hits he's a genius and when he's wrong we're just supposed to forget it.

[TitoMorelli]

http://chizumatic.mee.nu/



November 07, 2012

Sleepless night

I had a hard time sleeping last night. I was full of fear. There's a catastrophe waiting for my country, a precipice over which it may fall. And if that happens, it won't be recognizeable any longer, for the next twenty years or more.

I'm not talking about a liberal Supreme Court. I'm not talking about automatic tax increases on Jan 1, nor about sequester. This precipice is less obvious, yet far more dangerous.

I think the dollar is going to crash.

There's a story told about a man who fell out of a window on top of a skyscraper. As he passed the 20th floor he was heard to mutter, "Well, I'm OK so far." This country is falling, but hasn't hit the ground yet. When it does, things get very ugly, very fast.

The problem is the deficit. Three kinds of deficits, in fact. There's our cumulative national debt. No nation in history has ever owed $16 trillion. The second is the budget deficit, which has been over $1 trillion per year for the last four years. The third is our trade deficit.

The only reason that debt service on that $16 trillion hasn't destroyed us already is that the Fed is holding interest rates down. The reason the annual deficit hasn't destroyed us yet is that the Fed is "running the printing presses" (only they call it "quantitative easing") to cover it. But neither of those is sustainable in the long run. The ground is still waiting for us, and we'll know we've hit it when a T-bill auction ends up with a lot higher interest rate than we've been paying so far.

It'll be a cascading failure, once it begins. When T-bill interest rates begin to rise, confidence will begin to fail. The rise will accelerate as bond purchasers begin to price in increasing degrees of risk.

And eventually this explosion of money is going to lead to inflation. In fact, it already has; just go to a grocery store some time and look at the prices.

Which brings us to the third deficit: trade. The dollar is the de-facto world currency. Oil is priced and bought in dollars, and that's not the only thing that is. But if confidence in the dollar begins to decline, and increasing suspicion that the US will devalue it (either deliberately or inadvertantly) then willingness of others to accept dollars will decline and that will, in fact, result in a drop in the value of the dollar, reflected in changing exchange rates.

All of these things will feed back on themselves and each other, and it will be an accelerating failure. Once something like this happens, it's almost impossible to stop. I don't anticipate Weimar Republic (or Zimbabwe) levels of inflation, but I won't be at all suprised if it hits 20% per year. I won't be surprised if it's a lot higher than that.

And once that happens, the dollar will cease to be the international currency. Meanwhile, back at home, inflation will have all kinds of other nasty side effects.

Now it is sometimes argued that devaluation also leads to increased exports as your goods become more competitively priced. And there will be some of that. But the problem is that inflation in the domestic market will also cause the price of those goods to rise (priced in dollars). It'll be a wash, or even worse.

The result is a depression, with very high unemployment and general economic stagnation. And if the US goes into a depression, the rest of the world will, too. It's going to be as bad as the 1930's.

And do you remember what happened just after the 1930's?

This kind of economic catastrophe doesn't invariably lead to war, but it does tend to cause revolutions, and revolutions often in turn lead to war. I don't anticipate a revolution in the US itself, though I do expect rioting and other forms of civil unrest. But there are other places where revolution is not beyond the bounds of possibility -- like, for instance, Mexico. Or Argentina. Or Greece.

(UPDATE: Or China. If the American economy goes into the toilet, China can't avoid joining us, and that could lead to a revolution.)

And all of this is going to happen soon unless we get our stuff together immediately. With Obama (the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect) as our leader, and him surrounded by sycophants who are unwilling to tell him that he's full of ****, that kind of act-getting-together is pretty much inconceivable. (And indeed that word means what I think it means. And I don't expect the inquisition, either.)

So I had a hard time sleeping last night. I feel a bit better today, but not whole lots better. I only see one slight ray of hope: the Republicans retained control of the House, and it seems that even as he was running for VP, Paul Ryan also ran for his House seat, and won it. So there is at least one part of our government which understands the threat that faces us, and knows how to avert the catastrophe.

But they're outnumbered, two to one, and the Democrats seem to want to destroy the US as we know it now. The catastrophe I see coming appears to be a feature, not a bug, from their point of view. That scares me most of all.

They think that Americans buy too much, own too much, use too much. They want prices to rise relative to wages so that we can't afford as much. They want to make energy expensive so that we won't use as much. Anything that they can't make expensive they'll try to ban outright, like coal.

They've already done some of that, and they want to do more. And they're willing to lie and cheat and steal to make it happen.

I think they'll succeed. But I don't think they truly understand the consequences. I don't think they know just how awful it will become.

So I'm still not feeling very good.

[kevpks]

Well if all of that happens, the GOP can blame themselves for not putting up a better fight against a vulnerable opponent or for running a bunch of tea party zealots in key Senate races. I don't see how a party so inept is going to save us from this impending doom.

[badger]

Let's sell off the state of Maine. Think that's worth $16 trillion?

[TitoMorelli]

Well if all of that happens, the GOP can blame themselves for not putting up a better fight against a vulnerable opponent or for running a bunch of tea party zealots in key Senate races. I don't see how a party so inept is going to save us from this impending doom.

Of course. Blame anybody except the ones who are actually in charge.

[kevpks]

Of course. Blame anybody except the ones who are actually in charge.

I said "if" that doomsday scenario happens. I don't think it will. If it does, the GOP let it happen with a platform that did not emphasize the economy. It's all just more pouting from the GOP. If the Democrats have done such a terrible job, why couldn't the GOP take back control?

[cleller]

I said "if" that doomsday scenario happens. I don't think it will. If it does, the GOP let it happen with a platform that did not emphasize the economy. It's all just more pouting from the GOP. If the Democrats have done such a terrible job, why couldn't the GOP take back control?

A majority of the voters have no grasp of any of the concepts in that "doomsday" article. The vote for the candidate they feel will put money in their pocket, and will take taxes from someone else'. Just hope the article is not on target.
Obviously if it does come to pass, the GOP did not "let it happen". That makes no sense. The policies belong to the democrats.

Its like blaming the crash on the train. If you are just a Republican mad at the party for not taking the proper stance to win, maybe I can slightly understand, though.

[TitoMorelli]

I said "if" that doomsday scenario happens. I don't think it will. If it does, the GOP let it happen with a platform that did not emphasize the economy. It's all just more pouting from the GOP. If the Democrats have done such a terrible job, why couldn't the GOP take back control?

Didn't emphasize the economy? It was the focal point of the Romney campaign.

And maybe the reason it couldn't take back control is that too many voters prefer a "cool" president over one with actual fiscal experience. Or vote with their vag's instead of their brains.

[badger]

OK, OK. Maine is obviously not worth $16 trillion.

Let's sell California. Miles of oceanfront property already occupied by millions of people that vote tax increases for themselves. It's a no-brainer! Sell California to the highest bidder!

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I don't think the last two days have had much of anything to do with the election. The Obama victory was pretty much expected. And we all know that Wall St loves QE and this ensures indefinite QE continues. Certainly we've seen commodity inflation over the last few years, but price inflation will continue to hold off as long as the troubles in Europe remains. Right now, there's no alternative to the dollar and plenty of foreign reserves to soak up those extra dollars. When the Euro becomes a viable alternative again, we could be in trouble.

[cleller]

OK, OK. Maine is obviously not worth $16 trillion.

Let's sell California. Miles of oceanfront property already occupied by millions of people that vote tax increases for themselves. It's a no-brainer! Sell California to the highest bidder!

Go idea, but I'd hate to lose silicon valley. How about Ohio? They like to be in the news.

[kevpks]

If you are just a Republican mad at the party for not taking the proper stance to win, maybe I can slightly understand, though.

This. Although I'd call myself a borderline Republican at this point. Plus, the GOP shoulders a lot of blame for the policies as well. They controlled the House and much more from 2000-2008. Whatever trajectory we're on, they helped set in motion.

[SoonerorLater]

OK, OK. Maine is obviously not worth $16 trillion.

Let's sell California. Miles of oceanfront property already occupied by millions of people that vote tax increases for themselves. It's a no-brainer! Sell California to the highest bidder!

OK and I'll go one further. Let's throw in Rhode Island to sweeten the pot. It never should have been a state anyway.

[kevpks]

Didn't emphasize the economy? It was the focal point of the Romney campaign.



Have you read the GOP platform? Much of it deals with social issues. I agree that Romney tried to make it about the economy but he was undone by the embarrassing senate candidates in his own party like Akin. Romney was constantly having to answer for some dumbass comment by one of these turkeys. This allowed the Dems to shift the focus to social issues, where they're stronger.

[SoonerorLater]

Have you read the GOP platform? Much of it deals with social issues. I agree that Romney tried to make it about the economy but he was undone by the embarrassing senate candidates in his own party like Akin. Romney was constantly having to answer for some dumbass comment by one of these turkeys. This allowed the Dems to shift the focus to social issues, where they're stronger.

See this is the logic I don't understand. You're saying Romney was undone from embarassing statements by Akin because he was running as a republican in a state election but no problem for Obama with friends, associates and political allies. Terrorists like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who we know Obama dined with, Reverend Jeremiah Wright or endorsements from Louis Farrakhan. There just isn't quid pro quo in the dynamics of that argument. I say this as a guy who was at best lukewarm to Romney.

[badger]

OK and I'll go one further. Let's throw in Rhode Island to sweeten the pot. It never should have been a state anyway.

Washington DC isn't a state, so they're expendable.

So basically:
-California sans Silicon Valley
-Rhode Island
-Ohio
-Maine
-Washington DC

That's about $16 trillion worth, right?

[kevpks]

See this is the logic I don't understand. You're saying Romney was undone from embarassing statements by Akin because he was running as a republican in a state election but no problem for Obama with friends, associates and political allies. Terrorists like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who we know Obama dined with, Reverend Jeremiah Wright or endorsements from Louis Farrakhan. There just isn't quid pro quo in the dynamics of that argument. I say this as a guy who was at best lukewarm to Romney.

I'm saying those comments by Senate candidates put Romney's stance on abortion and gay marriage in the spotlight, which is something he was trying to avoid. Those jackass Senate candidates also energized the Democratic base even outside of those states. The Democrats were able to make reproductive rights a major campaign issue.

Ayers, Dohn, and Wright were not political candidates in Obama's party so I don't see the connection there.

By the way, why do you think Romney lost? Were his ideas bad? Did too many "moochers" who want to live off the government vote? I think he lost because the party is not playing to it's greatest asset: fiscal conservatism. They're clouding the waters with social issues that they'll never win.

[CowboyMRW]

Does it matter about 2016? The world ends in another month.

[TitoMorelli]

Have you read the GOP platform? Much of it deals with social issues. I agree that Romney tried to make it about the economy but he was undone by the embarrassing senate candidates in his own party like Akin. Romney was constantly having to answer for some dumbass comment by one of these turkeys. This allowed the Dems to shift the focus to social issues, where they're stronger.

Good point.

[badger]

Does it matter about 2016? The world ends in another month.

But NOT before the Big 12 crowns a new football champion. Sorry, Poke man, you will NOT be the forever-reigning Big 12 champions. NOW TURN IN YOUR FAKE 2010 RINGS! :stunned:

http://www.holyturf.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ok-state-Big-12-ring-224x300.jpg

[kevpks]

But NOT before the Big 12 crowns a new football champion. Sorry, Poke man, you will NOT be the forever-reigning Big 12 champions. NOW TURN IN YOUR FAKE 2010 RINGS! :stunned:

http://www.holyturf.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ok-state-Big-12-ring-224x300.jpg

It's a shame for the Pokes that the Mayans couldn't have pushed that date up a bit. They could have went out on a one game Bedlam winning streak.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I'm saying those comments by Senate candidates put Romney's stance on abortion and gay marriage in the spotlight, which is something he was trying to avoid. Those jackass Senate candidates also energized the Democratic base even outside of those states. The Democrats were able to make reproductive rights a major campaign issue.

Ayers, Dohn, and Wright were not political candidates in Obama's party so I don't see the connection there.

By the way, why do you think Romney lost? Were his ideas bad? Did too many "moochers" who want to live off the government vote? I think he lost because the party is not playing to it's greatest asset: fiscal conservatism. They're clouding the waters with social issues that they'll never win.

Abortion is not a losing issue for Republicans. The majority supports sensible limitations on abortion. Calling rape "God's will" or whatever that bonehead said is a losing issue. Romney was never going to win anyways because he's a bad candidate.

I agree that the Republicans win when they run on fiscal issues. The problem is they don't act like fiscal conservatives when they govern so it's probably better for them to be in the minority.

[pphilfran]

I don't think the last two days have had much of anything to do with the election. The Obama victory was pretty much expected. And we all know that Wall St loves QE and this ensures indefinite QE continues. Certainly we've seen commodity inflation over the last few years, but price inflation will continue to hold off as long as the troubles in Europe remains. Right now, there's no alternative to the dollar and plenty of foreign reserves to soak up those extra dollars. When the Euro becomes a viable alternative again, we could be in trouble.

I agree

[kevpks]

Abortion is not a losing issue for Republicans. The majority supports sensible limitations on abortion. Calling rape "God's will" or whatever that bonehead said is a losing issue. Romney was never going to win anyways because he's a bad candidate.

I agree that the Republicans win when they run on fiscal issues. The problem is they don't act like fiscal conservatives when they govern so it's probably better for them to be in the minority.

Good point.

[badger]

It's a shame for the Pokes that the Mayans couldn't have pushed that date up a bit. They could have went out on a one game Bedlam winning streak.

Yup, but if I'm not mistaken, we did beat them in basketball (I seem to recall an avatar change near the end of last season, heh) so they couldn't have overcome that.

But yes, the refs AND the Mayans have it out for Poke State. It's a damn ref/media/Texas/big12/mayan con-speer-uh-see! :les:

[KABOOKIE]

I see even some so-called wanna-be reprublicans have been fooled by the liberal media's lies. The media tried their damndest to brign out those comments and then twisted them to no end. **** people stop believing every GD thing ABC, NBC, CBS, MNBC, NPR and just about ever other news outlet says. They're up to their next in Obama semen its down right disgusting.

[kevpks]

I see even some so-called wanna-be reprublicans have been fooled by the liberal media's lies. The media tried their damndest to brign out those comments and then twisted them to no end. **** people stop believing every GD thing ABC, NBC, CBS, MNBC, NPR and just about ever other news outlet says. They're up to their next in Obama semen its down right disgusting.

How does a registered Republican questioning the direction of the party make him a "wanna-be"? This isn't my favorite sports team. I'd stick with OU with Howard at the helm but I'm not going to stick with the GOP if Bachmann and Santorum represent our direction.

What did the media lie about in regard to Akin or Murdoch? It's a little hard to say that they were twisting their words when they said it on camera. It made for a great story, no question. And the Democrats jumped all over it.

[Soonerjeepman]

Didn't emphasize the economy? It was the focal point of the Romney campaign.

And maybe the reason it couldn't take back control is that too many voters prefer a "cool" president over one with actual fiscal experience. Or vote with their vag's instead of their brains.

no doubt...good grief, they STILL find a way to blame the republicans...lol

[TitoMorelli]

Abortion is not a losing issue for Republicans. The majority supports sensible limitations on abortion. Calling rape "God's will" or whatever that bonehead said is a losing issue. Romney was never going to win anyways because he's a bad candidate.

I agree that the Republicans win when they run on fiscal issues. The problem is they don't act like fiscal conservatives when they govern so it's probably better for them to be in the minority.

Except that there apparently was no candidate who was better or more viable, given Romney's success in the primaries. And no one seemed to doubt his ability to compete following the first debate.

The campaign made crucial mistakes, some of which paralleled the election of 2008. Republicans once again were afraid to take the gloves off. Furthermore, they made a mistake in not countering the early ridiculous claims of Obama's campaign toadies and Reid, when they accused Mitt of just about everything imaginable. As some Monday-morning quarterbacks now observe, it was probably a huge mistake to allow the Dems to define Romney over the late spring and summer without countering such ridiculous claims forcefully, and giving Dems a taste of their own medicine.

[cleller]

By the way, why do you think Romney lost? Were his ideas bad? Did too many "moochers" who want to live off the government vote? I think he lost because the party is not playing to it's greatest asset: fiscal conservatism. They're clouding the waters with social issues that they'll never win.

This has been my complaint with Republicans. They've lost the core message. Lets just get the government under control. Let the courts worry about gays and sex and whatever other crap the media wants to bring up.
Have about a platform of "get yourself a job, and we'll help you keep your money".

First priority: Not giving your money to someone else without your consent. Just because someone would rather lay around all day, then screw around and make babies doesn't give them a right to your money.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Except that there apparently was no candidate who was better or more viable, given Romney's success in the primaries. And no one seemed to doubt his ability to compete following the first debate.

The campaign made crucial mistakes, some of which paralleled the election of 2008. Republicans once again were afraid to take the gloves off. Furthermore, they made a mistake in not countering the early ridiculous claims of Obama's campaign toadies and Reid, when they accused Mitt of just about everything imaginable. As some Monday-morning quarterbacks now observe, it was probably a huge mistake to allow the Dems to define Romney over the late spring and summer without countering such ridiculous claims forcefully, and giving Dems a taste of their own medicine.

Romney was the best of a bad lot. I think the first paragraph of Sic'Em's post-mortem about summed it up. He was never able to connect with voters. And maybe writing an op-ed about how the auto industry should be allowed to whither on the vine (whether you're right or not) is not the best idea when you have future plans to run for President where you'll need midwestern swing state voters to vote for you.

[FaninAma]

Abortion is not a losing issue for Republicans. The majority supports sensible limitations on abortion. Calling rape "God's will" or whatever that bonehead said is a losing issue. Romney was never going to win anyways because he's a bad candidate.

I agree that the Republicans win when they run on fiscal issues. The problem is they don't act like fiscal conservatives when they govern so it's probably better for them to be in the minority.

Especially when most in the electorate pay attention to the candidates for about 2 months of the election year and then only through news snippets and sound bytes. The Democrats understand this a lot better than the GOP does hence the massive negative televison advertising campaign against Romney in the swing states.

[cleller]

So the Dow is down 772 points for the month so far. Been much in the news about this? Its sure not the lead story anywhere I see on the internet.
If the markets had crumbled the day after a Romney election we'd be have special reports about the new crisis we're facing.

[kevpks]

So the Dow is down 772 points for the month so far. Been much in the news about this? Its sure not the lead story anywhere I see on the internet.
If the markets had crumbled the day after a Romney election we'd be have special reports about the new crisis we're facing.

The month is young!

[BigTip]

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
Ben Franklin.
Smart dude, ol' Ben.