President Obama Brings Facts to Romney and Ryan

[Havakasha]

"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.

[Havakasha]

Continued:

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]

The Accuracy and Reliability of Peter Schiff's Predictions
Can they be relied on for investment decisions?

Peter Schiff Predictions

Mr. Schiff is one of the few non-biased investment advisors (not committed solely to the short side of the market) to have correctly called the current bear market before it began and to have positioned his clients accordingly. As a result of his accurate forecasts on the U.S. stock market, economy, real estate, the mortgage meltdown, credit crunch, subprime debacle, commodities, gold and the dollar, he is becoming increasingly more renowned. He has been quoted in many of the nation's leading newspapers, His best-selling book, "Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse" was published by Wiley & Sons in February of 2007. His second book, "The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets: How to Keep your Portfolio Up When the Market is Down" was published by Wiley & Sons in October of 2008.

Mr. Schiff began his investment career as a financial consultant with Shearson Lehman Brothers, after having earned a degree in finance and accounting from U.C. Berkeley in 1987. A financial professional for over twenty years he joined Euro Pacific in 1996 and has served as its President since January 2000. He is also a contributing commentator for Newsweek International and served as an economic advisor to the 2008 Ron Paul presidential campaign. He holds FINRA Series 4, 7, 24, 27, 53, 55, 63 & 65 licenses.

Find out the facts here in this fair and objective analysis of Schiff: http://www.economicpredictions.org/p...ions/index.htm

"Uncannily Accurate".... never heard those words from Hava-gafa-kasha... but he is far from fair and objective. Hell, he can't even add to the conversation LMFAO.

Be sure to compare to Roubini................................ And notice how the article notes that other economists predicted the housing bubble... Not included is Krugman.

Back to the question Hava-gafa-kasha cannot, willnot attempt to answer even though he agrees that "everyone" knows that ever increasing debt is unsustainable. What will happen?

Here is one experts explanation from Med Jones linked above.

The Coming Crisis of 2015

In the longer term (3-5 years): We will experience another economic crisis that will affect the economies with high debt to GDP ratios such as USA, Italy and Japan. The exact timing, the depth, and the speed of the economic decline and recovery depend on government intervention policies, but there is not much more room remaining. The hole they dug themselves into is already deep. Global market forces are stronger than they think. At best they can delay the crisis but they have to pay an even higher price later. How will they pay it? This is subject to the politicians’ decision: Either sharp/quick decline and quick recovery; or soft/slow decline and slow recovery that could take decades. Someone has to pay for the debt, the Americans or the foreign investors or both.

--------------------

Treat the cold or the pneumonia it turns into? One thing is for sure, Obama ain't listening to ANY of these guys, and to make matters worse, he's supported by mind numbing partisan minions like Hava-gafa-kasha. What is most important to him is "social justice".

I have sufficiently made my point whether Hava-gafa-kasha wants to acknonwledge it or not. I will now move on to other examples of liberal stupidity.

[SiriuslyLong]

Continued:

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 don't know about this article, but Schiff likes global dividend paying companies like Catipiller, McDonald's and Yum Yum brands for example. His key was that they sell their products globally (Coke included) as to reduce risk to any one market (specifically the US). Seems contrary to what you've posted, but thanks for adding to the conversation.

[SiriuslyLong]

This is what SeriouslyWrong said about 2011 at the end of 2010 and beginning of 2011
concerning Mr. Schiff's predictions.


"I wouldn't dismiss any (of his) predictions for 2011 at this time. From my perspective (i.e. petrochemicals), it's starting to feel a lot like 2008. And look at the market..."

So 2011 was starting to feel like 2008 at the height of the 2nd worst recession? Amazingly wrong intuition.

Clearly he had no idea just how wrong Mr. Schiff could be nor had any understanding of the direction of the economy. A simple case of ideological bias i believe.

Sorry but I have to list those predictions for the 20th time BECAUSE CLEARLY SERIOUSLYWRONG
AND MR. SCHIFF DONT EMBARRASS TOO EASILY.

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!

In regards to bold text, you know nothing of the petrochemicals market yet you extend the comment to try to make some point. Making a point on something you know nothing about is intellectually lazy low level thinking. But I will humor you with the details.

You see in the first and second half of 2008, petrochemical prices were on a unheralded / unprecidented tear. Polypropylene was going up at a 45 degree angle. Then the bottom fell out in August / September of 2008. Well, petrochemical prices have moved up and down significantly the last year and half - sometimes moving up eerily similar to what happened in 2008. In fact, 2012 so far has the exact trend - polypropylene is up 22 cents. That was the basis of the comment. Pay attention to all of the words in the sentence and you'll be disinclined to incorrectly interpret the comment.

[Havakasha]

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.


SeriouslyWrong is clearly not able to answer or to defend anything I posted about Mr. Schiff.
He has not been able to challenge ONE SINGLE FACT I HAVE POSTED HERE. Its obvious why.
He would prefer to either change the subject or dance around the truth. Delusional? You be the judge. Intellectually DISHONEST? Without a doubt, but I will let you all be the judge.

Mr. Schiff has been posting DOOM and GLOOM for the past 20 years. It sells newsletters
and gets a cult following with a certain type of person. Unfortunately you would have
lost your shirt if you followed his investment advice.

Do you see this in the predictions Mr. SeriouslyWrong posted for the next few years?
Mr. Schiff fairly recently predicted (in 2010) that the Dow would fall to 1,400 or gold would rise to $12,000 in the next 3 years ( he gave the time prediction. Its up in 2013) This is an example of how extreme many of his predictions are. Its obvious he wont get this one correct anymore than he got many other predictions correct.



"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]

Just let this sink in when thinking about whom Mr. SeriouslyWrong choices 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]

Mr. SeriouslyWrong called Mr, Schiff the "amazing Mr. Schiff". Yes amazingly inept, dishonest,
and ideologically rigid. These are the FACTS.



"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

[SiriuslyLong]

"Well, if you followed Peter Schiff's advice about the housing bubble and gold you could have made a lot money or at least saved yourself a lot of losses. On the other hand if you followed his other predictions you would have lost a lot of money."

"Well, if you did follow Roubini's advice about the housing bubble prediction you could have made a lot money or at least saved yourself a lot of losses. On the other hand if you followed his other predictions you would have lost a lot of money."

And then there is Med Jones.

"How accurate are Med Jones' economic predictions? Can they be relied on for investing?

The most accurate predictions from all the economists who warned about the crisis belong to this economist.

Can his predictions be relied on for investment purposes?

The best answer comes from Med Jones himself in a response to our email:

I'm not an economist and I do not advise anyone to invest based on my outlook of the economy without conducting their own due diligence. At IIM, we do not sell investments, we offer education to help our clients make better investment decisions. If my research findings help you, then good for you. The truth is that when people invest on Wall Street they are essentially making bets and guesstimates about the future. Analysts and investors study target market events and analyze their complex relationships and behavioral patterns to determine emerging trends and make their bets. There are two problems facing investors and economists when they try to predict markets and future investment performance.

The first problem is any prediction formula that is valid for one context is not necessarily valid for another. Formulas must be updated with changing environments.

The second problem with prediction is that even if you get the formula right, your prediction results are dependent on so many uncontrollable variables such as mother nature, geopolitical events, new regulations, and changing relationships that affect the prices of the assets in question.

Luckily, to be a successful investor you do not need to be right all the time, you just have to be more right than wrong. That is how Vegas Casinos make so much money and even the best gamblers lose, they only play games that have the odds in their favor, they play in more controlled contexts. Playing the stock market is not much different. Successful investing is as much about risk management as it is about forecasting.

Just remember no one has a crystal ball, and even if I was right before, there is no guarantee that I will be right when regulations and markets change. If you want to be a better economist or investor, be a better student of the markets and the companies that you invest in. This is the most I can give you at this time, I'm busy and I cannot help with your school project. You can find useful resources and interviews in my media link at my website medjones.com"

And for Dean Baker

"How accurate are Dean Baker's economic predictions? Can they be relied on for investing?

Despite the fact he foresaw the crisis before anyone else and warned about it, if you followed his predictions you could have lost or made money depending on the time you listened to him. Whether you made money or lost money by or selling your house it depends on the time you listened to his advice. If you sold your house in 2002, 2003, or 2004 you would have lose money. If you listened to him in 2005 you would have saved yourself a lot of money. Dean Bakers went quiet on the topic in 2006 and 2007. The problem with Dean's prediction is timing, while other economists who predicted the crisis warned about it in 2006 & 2007.

Dean was also wrong on the Social Security. He said it was not a problem.

Research conclusion: Even if an economist is an expert in one sector or area, and was right once or several times, the complexity and number of variables in the economy make it almost impossible to be right all the time. So the value of these predictions is just to become aware of different risks. We only recommend that you follow your own conclusion rather than theirs."

Welcome to the real Hava-iliketokeepmyheadinthesandorinobamasass-kasha.

http://www.economicpredictions.org/p...ions/index.htm

[SiriuslyLong]

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ig&q=NYSEARCAGL

Up 21.37% on this, just checked my fidelity account!!! Thank you for the great advice Mr. Schiff.

Here's another one http://www.google.com/finance?client=ig&q=NYSE:CTL. Dividend yield of 7.61%. Buy now and enjoy thousands of dollars a year in dividends like I have.

Peter Schiff's advice has MADE ME MONEY!!!!! Just a fact Lloyd. Do you know why this is important to me? I earned the money I invested unlike you.