Page 4 of 4 ... 234
Results 31 to 35 of 35
  1. Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    05-17-2012, 11:55 AM #31
    More generalities from the Peter shiff and Austrian school of economics. You see how right Mr. Schiff has been over all the years.
    IT should be a hint to you that maybe you have some of your facts wrong.

    Where do you get these cute terms like "nanny state" from?
    Did you draw attention to them under any Republican Presidents? If not you are a hypocrite.
    Can you please point to a country and an economy which you think comes closest to your ideal economy?


    Will you acknowledge that you praised Englands austerity program and that it has now
    being fairly universally acknowledged by economists of all political parties to have been
    a mistake. Stimulus is clearly needed during deep recessions and depressions. Even
    Merkel is now understanding this.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 05-17-2012 at 11:58 AM.

  2. SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    05-17-2012, 12:06 PM #32
    Oh he was indeed right http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

    You cannot hide from how right he was on this. It is forever memorialized. Of course there are always some who might say it didn't happen; eerirly like holocaulst deniers.

    Nanny State? The Honorable Judge Andrew Nepolitano. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano

  3. Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    05-17-2012, 12:53 PM #33
    I quess you get all your information from Fox news. Now why am i surprised you like to use their talking points. lol.

    And he was INDEED WRONG. But of course you prefer to stick to the one thing he got "right". lol.
    Isnt this fun?


    Please tell me why its unfair to ask you to respond to the following article? Why is it impossible for you to answer to this article?


    "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.

  4. SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    05-17-2012, 01:51 PM #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    I quess you get all your information from Fox news. Now why am i surprised you like to use their talking points. lol.

    And he was INDEED WRONG. But of course you prefer to stick to the one thing he got "right". lol.
    Isnt this fun?


    Please tell me why its unfair to ask you to respond to the following article? Why is it impossible for you to answer to this article?


    "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.
    I've replied to this 3 times in another thread. Lunacy is defined as doing the same thing over and over again. Take your meds.

    Yes, Schiff sure did get "one thing" right. One really F'ING big thing that you can barely acknowledge because he's republican LMFAO. In fact, it might be the biggest thing in your pathetic lifetime.

    Don't pull that "Fox News" BS on me - Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Truthout.org, Mother Jones.................. They all spew your left leaning talking points.

  5. Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    05-17-2012, 02:59 PM #35
    You actually have NEVER addressed this specific article. Acknowledge that he would have lost anyone who invested as he recommended almost all their money. This isnt jut one year but many.

    I dont pretend to be something i am not. I am progressive democratic. Im on the left on many issues. in the center on some. You are someone, on the other hand, who has tried to pass yourself off as a centrist who never listens to Fox news. Yet you clearly you get all yourtalking points from the right wing stratosphere and Fox news. Just be honest about who you are and what you believe and we can argue our respective viewpoints in a fierce manner.

    You clearly dont have tha intelligence or the honesty to see how those 2 things are quite different.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 05-17-2012 at 03:01 PM.

Page 4 of 4 ... 234