Europe's pain is coming America's way

[Havakasha]

Can you please respond to my facts concerning Mr. Schiffs many wildly wrong predictions. Doesnt that fact poke holes in your economic theories?
Then please address Mr. Krugman's column and explain why you dont think they are correct?

I wont discuss "why" (concerning national debt) until and because everytime i catch you in some lie (mr. shiffs acccuracy and honesty) you refuse to acknowledge and address those facts. You are not some child who after refusing to accept responsiblity for getting something wrong, are simply able to change the subject. I dont believe you teach your own children such methods.

I have absolutely no problem having an intelligent discussion about the national debt. We have had this discussion MANY times before and its obvious we disagree with the timing and method of tackling the "ever increasing national debt". As you know, and are being rather disengenious about, both Democrats and Republicans are interested in decreasing the national debt.

P.S. "I dont have a leg to stand on" i understand you have a monopoly on the truth. lmfao

[SiriuslyLong]

Wow are you extreme. Aren't you the same guy who recognizes that ever increasing national debt is unsustainable, yet will not discuss why? Why won't you discuss why?

You don't have a leg to stand on.

Why won't you discuss it?

I've acknowledged Schiff's "predictions" multiple times in multiple threads.

[Havakasha]

Dont be disengenious and dishonest. You have yet to answer to these specific facts below.
As i just posted, I wont change the subject in order to satisfied someon who
refuses to accept responsiblity for praising Mr. schiff without acknowledging just how
many wrong predictions he has made. I understand that your economic theories fall
down if you do so but honesty dictates it. At least in the world that values truth.

As you well know we have posted many times on the national debt and we simply disagree
(as i just posted) about the timing and method of tackling that debt.



Just let this sink in when thinking about whom Mr. SeriouslyWrong chooses as his hero for economic and financial advice. It should help you evaluate his judgement as pertains to a whole host of issues (especially economic).


The predictions of Peter Schiff were for a "CATASTROPHIC" market crash in early 2011. His prediction was for "HYPERINFLATION" in 2011. Not normal or high inflation but HYPERINFLATION. His prediction was for gold to rise to $12,000 or the Dow to fall to 1,400 within the next 2 years.
His prediction was for interest rates on 10 year notes to be at "4% at the beginning of 2011 and
rise to 5% or even 6%% in 2011 or 2012. His prediction was that the dollar would collapse in 2011. And on and on and on....

HE GOT THIS ALL WRONG AND MORE!

You would have lost your shirt if you bet with him.

[Havakasha]

You have failed as well to respond to specifically. Show me how any of this is wrong.
These are figures that are easily checked. They are not the same as arguing over
economic theory where 2 people simply have different ideas.



"In other words, Peter Schiff may be a classic case of a stopped clock: he's been predicting a market decline FOREVER and when the market has declined he's hailed as a genius by his cult fans."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1068...hiff-right-now

Now, had you listened to Peter in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or even 3/4 of 2007, you lost your shirt. Had you placed bets based on Schiff's market calls, you lost everything you wagered.

The S&P (.INX) went from 1054 in May of 2002 (the date of the interview) to 1561 in Oct. 2007, a 48% gain and the Dow (.DJI) rose 40%.

Banking stocks, the primary victim of the housing bust, went up (JP Morgan (JPM) 36%, Bank of America (BAC) 41%, Wells Fargo (WFC) 39% , Wachovia (WB) 31% and American Express (AXP) 51%) during that time frame (dividends excluded which would dramatically add to results).

Bottom line? Had you listened to Mr. Schiff at anytime before Oct. 2007, you lost...big. To those who did, there is little consolation in the praise being heaped on him today.

Milton Freidman said, "markets can stay dislocated longer than you can stay solvent." For those who bet with Schiff between 2002-2007, they know the statement well.

Why is it a big deal? After all, Berkshire's (BRK.A) Warren Buffett claims he cannot time the market and often watches share prices decline in investments (like recent investments in Goldman Sachs (GS) and GE) before a rebound. How is this any different?

For one, Warren's loss is limited to his investment. He buys 1 share of stock "a" at $25. $25 is the most he can lose.

Now, if we listen to Peter and "short" stock "a" at 25, our loss has no limit. If it goes to $100, we lose $75. In shorting, we are only limited in our upside. If "a" goes to zero, "Schiffers" profit $25.

Buffett's strategy is an investing one and Schiff's is a trading and timing one.

Buffett followers can hold their shares, collect their dividend and wait for the rebound. Schiff followers collect no dividend and watched for over 5 years as their bet went wrong. How many stuck around? How many shorted into every market drop or "presumed" top over 5 years, only repeatedly losing money as the market kept rising and Schiff kept pounding his message home?

Schiff should not be getting the praise he is getting today for being "so right" after saying the same thing and being "so wrong" for the previous 5 years.

[SiriuslyLong]

Can you please respond to my facts concerning Mr. Schiffs many wildly wrong predictions. Doesnt that fact poke holes in your economic theories?
Then please address Mr. Krugman's column and explain why you dont think they are correct?

I wont discuss "why" (concerning national debt) until and because everytime i catch you in some lie (mr. shiffs acccuracy and honesty) you refuse to acknowledge and address those facts. You are not some child who after refusing to accept responsiblity for getting something wrong, are simply able to change the subject. I dont believe you teach your own children such methods.

I have absolutely no problem having an intelligent discussion about the national debt. We have had this discussion MANY times before and its obvious we disagree with the timing and method of tackling the "ever increasing national debt". As you know, and are being rather disengenious about, both Democrats and Republicans are interested in decreasing the national debt.

P.S. "I dont have a leg to stand on" i understand you have a monopoly on the truth. lmfao

You don't want intellegent discussion, please, don't even try.....

But you have caught my attention with, "both Democrats and Republicans are interested in decreasing the national debt."

Maybe that's the truth, but in the real world it's about results, and here they are: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[SiriuslyLong]

Or to respond to this:



"In other words, Peter Schiff may be a classic case of a stopped clock: he's been predicting a market decline FOREVER and when the market has declined he's hailed as a genius by his cult fans."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1068...hiff-right-now

Now, had you listened to Peter in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or even 3/4 of 2007, you lost your shirt. Had you placed bets based on Schiff's market calls, you lost everything you wagered.

The S&P (.INX) went from 1054 in May of 2002 (the date of the interview) to 1561 in Oct. 2007, a 48% gain and the Dow (.DJI) rose 40%.

Banking stocks, the primary victim of the housing bust, went up (JP Morgan (JPM) 36%, Bank of America (BAC) 41%, Wells Fargo (WFC) 39% , Wachovia (WB) 31% and American Express (AXP) 51%) during that time frame (dividends excluded which would dramatically add to results).

Bottom line? Had you listened to Mr. Schiff at anytime before Oct. 2007, you lost...big. To those who did, there is little consolation in the praise being heaped on him today.

Milton Freidman said, "markets can stay dislocated longer than you can stay solvent." For those who bet with Schiff between 2002-2007, they know the statement well.

Why is it a big deal? After all, Berkshire's (BRK.A) Warren Buffett claims he cannot time the market and often watches share prices decline in investments (like recent investments in Goldman Sachs (GS) and GE) before a rebound. How is this any different?

For one, Warren's loss is limited to his investment. He buys 1 share of stock "a" at $25. $25 is the most he can lose.

Now, if we listen to Peter and "short" stock "a" at 25, our loss has no limit. If it goes to $100, we lose $75. In shorting, we are only limited in our upside. If "a" goes to zero, "Schiffers" profit $25.

Buffett's strategy is an investing one and Schiff's is a trading and timing one.

Buffett followers can hold their shares, collect their dividend and wait for the rebound. Schiff followers collect no dividend and watched for over 5 years as their bet went wrong. How many stuck around? How many shorted into every market drop or "presumed" top over 5 years, only repeatedly losing money as the market kept rising and Schiff kept pounding his message home?

Schiff should not be getting the praise he is getting today for being "so right" after saying the same thing and being "so wrong" for the previous 5 years.

Here I will respond sensibly. Due your own due diligence. Do you really think I invest in everything Schiff recommends? Please, really, seriously..... What kind of assumption is that?

He's hailed as a genius for this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw, and maybe even this http://www.google.com/finance?client=ig&q=NYSEARCAGL (look at the 10 year chart).

[Havakasha]

i never said you invested in everything Mr. Schiff recommends. But if you had followed his investing advice generally i have demonstrated one would have lost a lot of money. Its clear you have high praise for him and i think these facts clearly show that that faith is misquided. Just answer to the specifics I have posted. Its quite simple. What are you afraid of? I really think
the answer is obvious.



"In other words, Peter Schiff may be a classic case of a stopped clock: he's been predicting a market decline FOREVER and when the market has declined he's hailed as a genius by his cult fans."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1068...hiff-right-now

Now, had you listened to Peter in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or even 3/4 of 2007, you lost your shirt. Had you placed bets based on Schiff's market calls, you lost everything you wagered.

The S&P (.INX) went from 1054 in May of 2002 (the date of the interview) to 1561 in Oct. 2007, a 48% gain and the Dow (.DJI) rose 40%.

Banking stocks, the primary victim of the housing bust, went up (JP Morgan (JPM) 36%, Bank of America (BAC) 41%, Wells Fargo (WFC) 39% , Wachovia (WB) 31% and American Express (AXP) 51%) during that time frame (dividends excluded which would dramatically add to results).

Bottom line? Had you listened to Mr. Schiff at anytime before Oct. 2007, you lost...big. To those who did, there is little consolation in the praise being heaped on him today.

Milton Freidman said, "markets can stay dislocated longer than you can stay solvent." For those who bet with Schiff between 2002-2007, they know the statement well.

Why is it a big deal? After all, Berkshire's (BRK.A) Warren Buffett claims he cannot time the market and often watches share prices decline in investments (like recent investments in Goldman Sachs (GS) and GE) before a rebound. How is this any different?

For one, Warren's loss is limited to his investment. He buys 1 share of stock "a" at $25. $25 is the most he can lose.

Now, if we listen to Peter and "short" stock "a" at 25, our loss has no limit. If it goes to $100, we lose $75. In shorting, we are only limited in our upside. If "a" goes to zero, "Schiffers" profit $25.

Buffett's strategy is an investing one and Schiff's is a trading and timing one.

Buffett followers can hold their shares, collect their dividend and wait for the rebound. Schiff followers collect no dividend and watched for over 5 years as their bet went wrong. How many stuck around? How many shorted into every market drop or "presumed" top over 5 years, only repeatedly losing money as the market kept rising and Schiff kept pounding his message home?

Schiff should not be getting the praise he is getting today for being "so right" after saying the same thing and being "so wrong" for the previous 5 years.

[Havakasha]

I prefer intelligent discussion not your misplaced personal insults.

In order to have intelligent discussion you have to address facts that differ with your theories.
If you dont address them its a demonstration of an UNWILLINGNESS TO have honest dialoque.
Simply address these facts here and now and we can move on.




SeriouslyWrong posted this in Jan. 2011. "i wouldnt dismiss ANY of his (mr. schiff's predictions)
for 2011" He said ANY. But what happened is that he got ALL those predictions WILDLY WRONG. Those are the facts and as you notice he cant defend or refute THESE FACTS.



The predictions of Peter Schiff were for a "CATASTROPHIC" market crash in early 2011. His prediction was for "HYPERINFLATION" in 2011. Not normal or high inflation but HYPERINFLATION. His prediction was for gold to rise to $12,000 or the Dow to fall to 1,400 within the next 2 years.
His prediction was for interest rates on 10 year notes to be at "4% at the beginning of 2011 and
rise to 5% or even 6%% in 2011 or 2012. His prediction was that the dollar would collapse in 2011. And on and on and on....

HE GOT THIS ALL WRONG AND MORE!

You would have lost your shirt if you bet with him.

[SiriuslyLong]

Dont be disengenious and dishonest. You have yet to answer to these specific facts below.
As i just posted, I wont change the subject in order to satisfied someon who
refuses to accept responsiblity for praising Mr. schiff without acknowledging just how
many wrong predictions he has made. I understand that your economic theories fall
down if you do so but honesty dictates it. At least in the world that values truth.

As you well know we have posted many times on the national debt and we simply disagree
(as i just posted) about the timing and method of tackling that debt.



Just let this sink in when thinking about whom Mr. SeriouslyWrong chooses as his hero for economic and financial advice. It should help you evaluate his judgement as pertains to a whole host of issues (especially economic).


The predictions of Peter Schiff were for a "CATASTROPHIC" market crash in early 2011. His prediction was for "HYPERINFLATION" in 2011. Not normal or high inflation but HYPERINFLATION. His prediction was for gold to rise to $12,000 or the Dow to fall to 1,400 within the next 2 years.
His prediction was for interest rates on 10 year notes to be at "4% at the beginning of 2011 and
rise to 5% or even 6%% in 2011 or 2012. His prediction was that the dollar would collapse in 2011. And on and on and on....

HE GOT THIS ALL WRONG AND MORE!

You would have lost your shirt if you bet with him.

You're like a little baby. Here, I'll play along. HYPERINFLATION has not occured, nor has gold reach $12,000 nor has the Dow gone to 1400. And I hope the don't (I have to double back a little on the gold - I'm invested in it).

Now it is time to discuss real ignorance. Instead of understanding the basis of these predictions, you simply hold them up as some sort of flag (I honestly don't know what you are going for). You agree that the ever growing national debt is unsustainable, but will not disuss what that might lead to.

Well Lloyd, the things Schiff discusses may very well be ramafications of ever growing national debt. I don't know. I am not an economist. You dismiss them as "wrong predictions", but fail to put forth any inevitibility of ever increasing national debt. Keep in mind, you "agree" that it is unsustainable.

It's actually a fairly easy topic to understand, but you don't want to because then you would have to agree with Schiff that "bad things" could happen if our ever increasing national debt is not addressed.

Speaks volumes to me Lloyd.

[Havakasha]

I posted 2 pieces (one article, one fact sheet about 2011) of information. It would be incredibly simple for you to address those
specific facts about Mr. Schiff's forecasting. You seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to avoid addressing them. It doesnt look like you are willing to be honest about this. This makes it impossible to have an intelligent discussion dont you think?