Peter Schiff Wrong SO many times/

[SiriuslyLong]

Typo? LMFAO. You post 5,000 he says 1,400. Cute
I'm always looking for the truth. You still hiding and running? Unwilling to admit Mr. Schiff's mistaken predictions? Clearly

Did you read the other posts of mine? Do you want to make a friendly wager on the remaining
predictions of his for 2011?

You Should check out this site because its pretty devestating when it comes to Peter Schiff's predictions.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01...iff-was-wrong/

Well you got me here doughboy. No I will not take that bet. Now if you would like to expand that time frame to 5 years, I would consider it as the current path is not sustainable and there are inevitabilities. You can keep your head in the sand. I've given you ample opportunity to explore the possibilities of a failing dollar. You've ignored them in favor of deriding Schiff which says a heck of a lot about you and your rock solid ideology.

"Liberals speak often of tolerance, but they only tolerate Liberals and Liberal ideas" TRUE - demonstrated here.

"Liberals seek to insult and discredit anyone who dares to disagree with them" TRUE - demonstrated here.

Your idea of debate and idea exchange is as convoluted as your narrow minded political position.

[SiriuslyLong]

Peter Schiff wraps his congressional testimony on the Obama jobs plan, which was one of the most memorable such Congressional hearings on the topic to date, with the following letter of caution to all Americans. To wit: "I don't think those few open minds in the Capitol are going to be enough to keep this ship from sinking. There just isn't enough time or a strong enough will for reform from the American people. That is why it is so important for you to act individually to protect yourself and your family from the new age of stagflation. Please take the time to view my testimony, understand the problems we face, and align your investments accordingly." We urge anyone who has not watched Peter's testimony yet to do so below.

From Peter Schiff:

Dear Friends and Supporters,

As many of you know, last week I was invited to Washington to testify in front of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Government Reform and Stimulus Oversight. For that, we can thank Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH).

The subject of the hearing was job creation in the United States – specifically, what the government can and can’t do to boost employment. While many people have asked me in the last few days why I even bothered to participate, I think it was a valuable experience. I don’t expect that anything I said will make an immediate impact on policy, but at least some of my opinions got a fair hearing in the halls of power.

After the testimony, I did have a few one-on-one meetings with open-minded Congressmen from both sides of the aisle. Maybe they were just being polite, but they had no obligation to talk to me, or even invite me, in the first place. So, I thank them for the opportunity.

Still, I don't think those few open minds in the Capitol are going to be enough to keep this ship from sinking. There just isn't enough time or a strong enough will for reform from the American people.

That is why it is so important for you to act individually to protect yourself and your family from the new age of stagflation. Please take the time to view my testimony, understand the problems we face, and align your investments accordingly.

For a 22-minute version with just the highlights of my remarks and exchanges with the Committee, see below.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/peter-...p-ship-sinking

Sounds really familiar lol.

[Havakasha]

DO you want to make that friendly wager on his remaining 2011 predictions? No money.
The person who loses has to come on here and say I GOT IT WRONG. You game? lol.

[Havakasha]

This one i believe is very important. I think its telling about Schiff's ideological rigidity.


"Unlike Schiff, we attempt to position our clients for what the market is actually doing, not what we think it ought to be doing. The distinction is paramount, especially when such thinking just might be wrong."

[SiriuslyLong]

CEO Blows Away Congressional Hearing: 'I Was Fined for Hiring Too Many People!'

Schiff drives home the point.

http://nation.foxnews.com/peter-schi...oo-many-people

I wonder if Hava (get a freakin' accountant) kasha burned the book by Schiff that I paid for and sent to his home in good faith (before he knew he was a "republican", and back when HE endoresed the Schiff Was Right video in an arguement with the dreaded John. I wouldn't doubt. That's how the dark age progressive handle heretics these days lol.

[SiriuslyLong]

This one i believe is very important. I think its telling about Schiff's ideological rigidity.


"Unlike Schiff, we attempt to position our clients for what the market is actually doing, not what we think it ought to be doing. The distinction is paramount, especially when such thinking just might be wrong."

Yeah, just like it was a good $500 MM bet on Solyndra. Dumbass. How convenient of you.

And that was OUR money.

[SiriuslyLong]

This one flies right into the face of Hava-gava-kasha's rigid political position. Long.


On Tuesday, September 13, Peter Schiff, the CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, will testify before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending.

The hearing entitled, "Take Two: The President's Proposal to Stimulate the Economy and Create Jobs" will examine federal job creation efforts.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking member, and all distinguished members of this panel.

Thank you for inviting me here today to offer my opinions as to how the government can help the American economy recover from the worst crisis in living memory.

Despite the understandable human tendency to help others, government spending cannot be a net creator of jobs.

Indeed many efforts currently under consideration by the Administration and Congress will actively destroy jobs.

These initiatives must stop.

While it is easy to see how a deficit-financed government program can lead to the creation of a specific job, it is much harder to see how other jobs are destroyed by the diversion of capital and resources.

It is also difficult to see how the bigger budget deficits sap the economy of vitality, destroying jobs in the process.

In a free market jobs are created by profit seeking businesses with access to capital. Unfortunately Government taxes and regulation diminish profits, and deficit spending and artificially low interest rates inhibit capital formation. As a result unemployment remains high, and will likely continue to rise until policies are reversed.

It is my belief that a dollar of deficit spending does more damage to job creation than a dollar of taxes.

That is because taxes (particularly those targeting the middle or lower income groups) have their greatest impact on spending, while deficits more directly impact savings and investment.

Contrary to the beliefs held by many professional economists spending does not make an economy grow.

Savings and investment are far more determinative.

Any program that diverts capital into consumption and away from savings and investment will diminish future economic growth and job creation.

Creating jobs is easy for government, but all jobs are not equal. Paying people to dig ditches and fill them up does society no good. On balance these "jobs" diminish the economy by wasting scarce land, labor and capital. We do not want jobs for the sake of work, but for the goods and services they produce. As it has a printing press, the government could mandate employment for all, as did the Soviet Union. But if these jobs are not productive, and government jobs rarely are, society is no better for it.

[Havakasha]

I was just thinking that maybe your phobia for accountants is tied up in Mr. Schiff's father's? Are you cheatin on your taxes. Come on now own up. If you would lie about Peter Schiff's record mightn you lie about.....

[SiriuslyLong]

This is also true of the much vaunted "infrastructure spending." Any funds directed toward infrastructure deprive the economy of resources that might otherwise have funded projects that the market determines have greater economic value. Infrastructure can improve an economy in the log-run, but only if the investments succeeds in raising productivity more than the cost of the project itself. In the interim, infrastructure costs are burdens that an economy must bear, not a means in themselves.

Unfortunately our economy is so weak and indebted that we simply cannot currently afford many of these projects. The labor and other resources that would be diverted to finance them are badly needed elsewhere.

Although it was labeled and hyped as a "jobs plan," the new $447 billion initiative announced last night by President Obama is merely another government stimulus program in disguise. Like all previous stimuli that have been injected into the economy over the past three years, this round of borrowing and spending will act as an economic sedative rather than a stimulant. I am convinced that a year from now there will be even more unemployed Americans than there are today, likely resulting in additional deficit financed stimulus that will again make the situation worse.

The President asserted that the spending in the plan will be "paid for" and will not add to the deficit. Conveniently, he offered no details about how this will be achieved. Most likely he will make non-binding suggestions that future congresses "pay" for this spending by cutting budgets five to ten years in the future. In the meantime money to fund the stimulus has to come from someplace. Either the government will borrow it legitimately from private sources, or the Federal Reserve will print. Either way, the adverse consequences will damage economic growth and job creation, and lower the living standards of Americans.

There can be no doubt that some jobs will in fact be created by this plan. However, it is much more difficult to identify the jobs that it destroys or prevents from coming into existence. Here's a case in point: the $4,000 tax credit for hiring new workers who have been unemployed for six months or more. The subsidy may make little difference in effecting the high end of the job market, but it really could make an impact on minimum wage jobs where rather than expanding employment it will merely increase turnover.

Since an employer need only hire a worker for 6 months to get the credit, for a full time employee, the credit effectively reduces the $7.25 minimum wage (from the employer's perspective) to only $3.40 per hour for a six-month hire. While minimum wage jobs would certainly offer no enticement to those collecting unemployment benefits, the lower effective rate may create some opportunities for teenagers and some low skilled individuals whose unemployment benefits have expired. However, most of these jobs will end after six months so employers can replace those workers with others to get an additional tax credit.

Of course the numbers get even more compelling for employers to provide returning veterans with temporary minimum wage jobs, as the higher $5,600 tax credit effectively reduces the minimum wage to only $1.87 per hour. If an employer hires a "wounded warrior", the tax credit is $9,600 which effectively reduces the six-month minimum wage by $9.23 to negative $1.98 per hour. This will encourage employers to hire a "wounded warrior" even if there is nothing for the employee to do. Such an incentive may encourage such individuals to acquire multiple no-show jobs form numerous employers. As absurd as this sounds, history has shown that when government created incentives, the public will twist themselves into pretzels to qualify for the benefit.

The plan creates incentives for employers to replace current minimum wage workers with new workers just to get the tax credit. Low skill workers are the easiest to replace as training costs are minimal. The laid off workers can collect unemployment for six months and then be hired back in a manner that allows the employer to claim the credit. The only problem is that the former worker may prefer collecting extended unemployment benefits to working for the minimum wage!

The $4,000 credit for hiring the unemployed as well as the explicit penalties for discriminating against the long-term unemployed will result in a situation where employers will be far more likely to interview and hire applicants who have been unemployed for just under six months. Under the law, employers would be wise to refuse to interview anyone who has been unemployed for more than six months, as any subsequent decision not to hire could be met with a lawsuit. However, to get the tax credit they would be incentivized to interview applicants who have been unemployed for just under six months. If they are never hired there can be no risk of a lawsuit, but if they are hired, the start date can be planned to qualify for the credit.

The result will simply create classes of winners (those unemployed for four or five months) and losers (the newly unemployed and the long term unemployed). Ironically, the law banning discrimination against long-term unemployed will make it much harder for such individuals to find jobs.

At present, I am beginning to feel that over regulation of business and employment, and an overly complex and punitive tax code is currently a bigger impediment to job growth than is our horrific fiscal and monetary policies. As a business owner I know that reckless government policy can cause no end of unintended consequences.

This gets you to the end of page one. I wonder if Havakasha will read any of it. I know he has stuff already on his clipboard for easy pasting.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-the-2011-9

[SiriuslyLong]

I was just thinking that maybe your phobia for accountants is tied up in Mr. Schiff's father's? Are you cheating
on your taxes. Come on now own up. If you would lie about Peter Schiff's record mightn you lie about.....

I have no phobia. In fact my wife and I discussed playing this game the way you do.