Printable View
Speaking of embarrasement... Here you have a guy who is living of his families legacy. Hasn't moved. Hasn't made it on his own..... Hasn't even tried to make it by himself.... Still lives in NYC were his family built the empire he enjoys....Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
Oh man i have been slimed by the SiriuslyWrong guy. lol. Jekyl and hyde.
He always goes for the personal insults when he cant win an argument. So obvious.
Yikes. SiriuslyAngry strikes again. Acting nutty. Plain and simple. :)
Im sorry, but i have the facts on my side with regard to Mr. Schiff and it obviously upsets you.
If you had simply acknowledged all the mistaken predictions....
You cant say I havent given you lots of opportunities to man up.
P.S. You forgot to say I use an accountant. Lmfao.
Sugar Daddies
http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/con...donors-2012-4/
Sugar Daddies
The old, white, rich men who are buying this election.
By Frank Rich Published Apr 22, 2012 ShareThis
If you want to appreciate what Barack Obama is up against in 2012, forget about the front man who is his nominal opponent and look instead at the Republican billionaires buying the ammunition for the battles ahead. A representative example is Harold Simmons, an 80-year-old Texan who dumped some $15 million into the campaign before primary season had ended. Reminiscing about 2008, when he bankrolled an ad blitz to tar the Democrats with the former radical Bill Ayers, Simmons told The Wall Street Journal, “If we had run more ads, we could have killed Obama.” It is not a mistake he intends to make a second time. The $15 million Simmons had spent by late February dwarfs the $2.8 million he allotted to the Ayers takedown and the $3 million he contributed to the Swift Boat Veterans demolition of John Kerry four years before that. Imagine the cash that will flow now that the GOP sideshows are over and the president is firmly in Simmons’s crosshairs.
His use of the verb killed was meant in jest, of course, much as Foster Friess ($1.8 million in known contributions, and counting) was joking when he suggested that “gals” could practice birth control by putting Bayer aspirin between their knees. America’s billionaires are such cards! And we had better get used to their foibles and funny bones. Whatever else happens in 2012, it will go down as the Year of the Sugar Daddy. Inflamed by Obama-hatred, awash in self-pity, and empowered by myriad indulgent court and Federal Election Commission rulings, an outsize posse of superrich white men will spend whatever it takes to have its way with the body politic and, if victorious, with the country itself. Given the advanced age of most of this cohort, 2012 may be seen as the election in which the geezer empire struck back.
This isn’t quite what was supposed to happen. When the Supreme Court handed down its five-to-four Citizens United decision in 2010, pre-vetting Mitt Romney’s credo that “corporations are people,” apocalyptic Democrats, including Obama, predicted that the election would become a wholly owned subsidiary of the likes of Chevron and General Electric. But publicly traded, risk-averse corporations still care more about profits than partisanship. They tend to cover their bets by giving to both parties. And they are fearful of alienating customers and investors. Witness, most recently, the advertisers who fled Rush Limbaugh, or the far bigger brands (*McDonald’s and Wendy’s, Coke and Pepsi) that severed ties with the conservative lobbying mill responsible for pushing state “stand your ground” laws like the one used to justify the shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida. While corporations and unions remain serious players in the campaign of 2012, their dollars don’t match those of the sugar daddies, who can and do give as much as they want to the newfangled super-PACs.
Keep reading. click on link. Really informative article in my opinion.
Hyperinflation USA?
http://www.hyperinflation-us.com/
Peter Schiff is Wrong __ James Turk is Wrong
Peter Schiff's Euro Pacific Capital newsletter from April of 2009 stands out as especially revealing. That newsletter clearly demonstrates just how far off the proponents of the Austrian school are on understanding inflation and hyperinflation. The newsletter featured a guest article written a month earlier by James Turk entitled "On the Cusp of Hyperinflation". [James Turk is the author of The Collapse of the Dollar and the founder of goldmoney.com.] In this March 2009 article, James Turk enumerated 6 reasons for his predicting that "hyperinflation of the US dollar is imminent" and also said "[the US dollar] is on the cusp of hyperinflation. I expect this to become increasingly clear within twelve months." Of course this hyperinflation prediction has proven to be wildly off the mark. Average consumer price inflation by any measure has registered in the low to mid single digits in the 2½ years since. Nevertheless, in September of 2010, eighteen months after his 'hyperinflation within a year' prediction, Turk unapologetically published another such prediction, in which he hyperlinked to his original prediction. Though no doubt he is sincere, James Turk is dead wrong. It will be interesting to see for how many more years James Turk and Peter Schiff, et al, will continue to reiterate these runaway inflation predictions that will completely fail to materialize.
Austrian Economics is Wrong
This, folks, is your fair warning: Peter Schiff, James Turk, John Williams, Marc Faber, Charles Goyette and others will surely continue ad nauseum with their predictions of runaway inflation in the dollar but consumer prices simply aren't going to cooperate with them. Sooner or later these pundits will have to face the reality of radically lower consumer price inflation than they predict. Eventually their predictions will lose all credibility. These guys really don't understand economics holistically—especially the factors affecting why people raise prices. Yes, I say factors (plural), as Milton Friedman's famous quote, "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" is simply wrong. And I say people, as the Austrian school simply views consumer prices as inextricably linked to the money supply, as if little else matters, such as people's perceptions, and people's propensities for taking pricing action (or no action). You just can't have a viable price inflation model that completely removes human behavior from the equation. Sorry Milton.
Keep reading... Click on link.
It's not about "sliming" you or personal insults. It speaks to your character and your judgment. It almost like what Obama is busting Romney about - you know, the silver spoon vs. making it on your own.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
I think when you lie it speaks to your character and judgement. The need for personal insults is something else. That speaks to your immaturity and your hypocrisy and your inability to admit when you have been proven wrong.I seem to recall a time when you claimed Liberals were the ones prone to insults. It seems the reverse is the case.
You really do need to grow up you silly goose. If you have children as you say and havent invented your entire autobiography here I sure do hope you teach them another way. Damn what an awful model you have given them.
You seem to like to talk about an awful lot of things you know nothing about. Se la vie
I always like to bring it back to the facts of Mr.SeriouslyWrong's favoritie economic theorist and theories.
Have you have been able to research these facts?
Please explain. Thanks.
"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.
It's HAPPENING!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
You still on the clock? i have to question your work ethic. :)
Dont really believe you work actually. Doesnt add up. I think you invented a internet persona.
You are john arent you? :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
Shhh, I'm on a conference all right now. I can't concentrate.
Definitely knew you had no work ethic, nor not much common sense. Enjoy. Lol