Lloyd is too dumb to interpret information. That's why he works strictly off the extreme left wing script. He can't think for himself.
SIRIUS XM SATELLITE RADIO FORUM
Lloyd is too dumb to interpret information. That's why he works strictly off the extreme left wing script. He can't think for himself.
Welcome to the amazing Mr. Schiff official video!! Yes, this video is truly amazing. Only Hava-gafa-kasha thinks it isn't. Yeap, extreme. Would you trust a guy who looks at a black car and tells you it is white? That's what we're working with in Hava-gafa-kasha.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
And if you want to join the Peter Schiff fan club, go here: http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.com/
Last edited by SiriuslyLong; 04-15-2012 at 02:45 PM.
Here is the book I sent to Hava-gafa-kasha on my own dime. He agreed to read it, but then learned that Schiff was a republican, and decided against it. How's that for extreme? Like the NYC chump he is, he never returned the favor.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Gr.../dp/047052670X
And here's the book I wish I had read 2 or 3 years earlier then when I did.
http://www.amazon.com/Crash-Proof-Pr.../dp/0470043601
I actually sent that one to one of my better clients. Visited him about a month thereafter and his comment was "unbelievable, truly unbelievable" (that some actually knew the housing bubble was going to burst, and nothing was done about it). Yeap, YOU GOTTA HAVE FAITH IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LMFAO.
Hava-gava-kasha doesn't want to hear the message. It gets in his extreme left wing ideology.
Hey, here's an article from Schiff's website....
By: Peter Schiff
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Last week, responding to President Obama’s latest populist assault on the wealthy, I issued a commentary in which I explained why his ideas about American economic history were fundamentally flawed. As dangerous and erroneous as those views are, at least I can cut the President some slack for commenting on a subject in which he really has no basis for expertise. Hailing from academia and local community organizing, Barack Obama likely did not spend huge amounts of time boning up on economic history. However, there are other subjects where he should find firmer footing. Constitutional law certainly comes to mind. After all, Obama rose to national prominence based on his status as a legal scholar. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was elected president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He went on to teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, one of the top ranked schools in the country.
Based on these achievements, it is simply stunning that he made so many fundamental errors last week in his analysis of the Supreme Court’s review of his sweeping health care legislation. Not only did he make grossly inaccurate statements with regards to the health care legislation, and the history of Supreme Court decisions that relate to it, but he also showed little understanding of the very purpose that the Court serves within the constitutional framework of the U.S. government. These remarks either indicate that a Harvard degree isn’t worth the paper it’s written on or that there is nothing Obama won’t say to advance his political agenda.
In his apparently off-the-cuff remarks he stated that “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what will be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Before even turning to the more nuanced parts of that statement, I would ask the President what he considers to be a “strong majority?” His health care legislation (dubbed “Obamacare” by Republicans), passed the House of Representatives in March 2010 on a nearly party line vote of 220-221 (some would call this result “a squeaker.”) What’s more, just six months later, the slim majority that voted to pass the legislation was voted out of existence. Not only would the law stand no chance of passage in the current Congress, the majority of Americans still show misgivings about the expansion of federal power that the law involves. So much for a groundswell of national support. But that’s just the appetizer.
Obama claimed that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn a law passed by Congress. Is he kidding? Every seventh or eighth grader who has taken a civics course knows that the Supreme Court acts as a check on the executive and legislative branches of government (who can often disregard the Constitution in their quests for votes and power). The intent of the framers of the constitution was affirmed in 1803 by the landmark case “Marbury vs. Madison” in which Chief Justice John Marshall established the doctrine of “judicial review,” whereby the Court can strike down any law that it feels to be unconstitutional. Is it possible that they never got around to that case at Harvard?
Since Marbury the Supreme Court has undone sweeping economic policies many times. Perhaps the most significant example was in 1895 when the Income Tax Act of 1894 was undone by Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust. By ruling that the new income tax did not conform to the taxing powers delegated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court derailed the revenue seeking agenda of the federal government. Proponents of the tax had to revert to the constitutional amendment process, a workaround that took 18 years and ultimately resulted in the 16th Amendment.
40 years after Pollock the Supreme Court struck again when it invalidated the National Recovery Act (NRA), Franklin Roosevelt’s signature piece of Depression Era legislation. The NRA was truly an “unprecedented” intrusion into the commercial lives of Americans which injected U.S. government micromanagement into almost every facet of commercial activity. It told merchants and industries how much they could charge for particular products, how much they should pay workers, how long workers could work, how employers could negotiate with unions, and established ”codes of fair competition” for all business to follow.
http://www.europac.net/commentaries/...tial_posturing There's more to go.
I'll have to find why Schiff thinks Obama's American economic history are fundamentally wrong.
Obama’s Pretzel Logic
By: Peter Schiff
Thursday, April 5, 2012
As this fall’s presidential election takes shape as a contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the rhetoric out of both camps is becoming sharper and more ideological. Looking to exploit Governor Romney’s increasingly close association with Wisconsin representative Paul Ryan (who has been mentioned as a potential vice presidential nominee), the President dedicated a lengthy address earlier this week to specifically heap scorn on Ryan’s budget plan (Ryan is the chairman of the House Budget Committee). The attack lines used by the President not only reveal a preview of the fall campaign but also offer a glimpse of Obama’s skewed views of the social and economic history of the United States.
The President laid bare his beliefs that America’s source of economic strength has been her historical embrace of collective action, wealth redistribution, and government policies that have protected workers from the ravages of the wealthy. To reiterate, he was talking about the United States, not Soviet Russia. He asserted that prosperity “grows outward from the middle class” and that it “never trickles down from the success of the wealthy.” Accordingly, he concludes that our recent struggles stem from the Republican-led abandonment of these successful policies.
In reaching these conclusions Obama relies on classic “wet sidewalks cause rain” reasoning, and assumes that an effect can be the father of the cause. But as we debate how to move the American economy out of the rut in which it is trapped, it’s important to know where to put the cart and where the horse.
To illustrate his point, Obama singled out auto pioneer Henry Ford, who famously paid among the highest wages in the world at that time his company began churning out Model T’s. By paying such high wages Obama believes Ford created consumers who could afford to purchase his cars, thereby giving business the ability to grow. Based on this understanding, any program that puts money into the pockets of the average American consumer will be successful in creating growth, especially if those funds can be taxed from the wealthy, who are less likely to spend. Obama argues that Republican proposals that reign in government spending, and cut benefits to the middle or low incomes, are antithetical to this goal.
While it is true that the American middle class rose in tandem with her economic might, it was the success of the country’s industrialists that allowed the middle class to arise. Capitalism unleashed the productive capacity of entrepreneurs and workers, which brought down the cost of goods to the point that high levels of consumption were possible for a wider cross section of individuals. While Henry Ford, as Obama noted, paid his workers well enough to buy Ford cars, those high wages would never have been possible, or his products affordable, if not for the personal innovation he, and other American industrialists, brought to the table in the first place.
The economists that Obama follows believe that business will only create jobs once they know consumers have the money to buy their products. But just as wet sidewalks don’t cause rain, consumption does not lead to production. Rather, production leads to consumption. Something must be produced before it can be consumed.
uhoh - logic.... read the rest here: http://www.europac.net/commentaries/..._pretzel_logic
Didn't take so long... there was a hyperlink in the article above!!!!
So now we see why Hava-gafa-kasha (a camera operator) likes to try to dog Schiff (a heralded economist and businessman) -- politics.
Last edited by SiriuslyLong; 04-15-2012 at 02:46 PM.
Schiff has a new book coming out. Maybe I'll read this one BEFORE whatever happens happens. Like I said, I read Crash Proof a couple years too late.
Peter Schiff’s latest book: The Real Crash: America’s Coming Bankruptcy – How to Save Yourself and Your Country will be available in early May 2012. The book takes aim at the full spectrum of ridiculous government policies that have led us to the doorstep of ruin. Our failures in economic growth, education, health care, retirement planning, taxes, and of course monetary policy, are all examined in detail and are shown to have been the product of counter-productive government policies.
By pre-ordering now you can help the book get noticed by the mainstream media which will inject these ideas into the presidential election.
http://www.europac.net/recommended_reading
Scroll down to see more excellent books to read.
How big is $9 trillion?
August 23, 2009, 5:54 pm
There’s been some hysteria about the administration’s new estimate that the cumulative deficit will be $9 trillion over the next decade. Don’t get me wrong: this is bad. But it’s being treated as an inconceivable sum, far beyond anything that could possibly be handled. And it isn’t.
What you have to bear in mind is that the economy — and hence the federal tax base — is enormous, too. Right now GDP is around $14 trillion. If economic growth averages 2.5% a year, which has been the norm, and inflation is 2% a year, which is the target (and which the bond market seems to believe), GDP will be around $22 trillion a decade from now. So we’re talking about adding debt that’s equal to around 40% of GDP.
Right now, federal debt is about 50% of GDP. So even if we do run these deficits, federal debt as a share of GDP will be substantially less than it was at the end of World War II. It will also be substantially less than, say, debt in several European countries in the mid to late 1990s. (There are some technical issues in comparing these various numbers — gross debt versus net (mainly about Social Security) and overall government debt versus federal, but they don’t change the basic picture.)
Again, the debt outlook is bad. But we’re not looking at something inconceivable, impossible to deal with; we’re looking at debt levels that a number of advanced countries, the US included, have had in the past, and dealt with.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...is-9-trillion/
Um, anyone get the joke here? Sorry, it's not a joke, but you know there is indeed a joke. You know what I mean. If you don't, and I'm sure Hava-gafa-kasha falls into that catagory, then here: http://www.usdebtclock.org/.
Does Hava-gafa-kasha know how to calculate the % increase or the CAGR?
As usually he demonstrate a complete lack of honesty, by refusing to address all the facts I have presented here about his predictions over many years. That is all you need to know about an
individual who is clearly lacking in basic integrity.
Is Mr. Schiff actually an ECONOMIST as you stated? i havent seen evidence to back that up.
I do know he is a doom and gloom stock analyst and someone with political ambition.
IF SeriouslyWrong WANTS us to believe the facts of his stock picking in relation to Mr. Schiff'f predictions then he should please tell us what year you started investing wtih him and show us the account in its entirety including prices etc. as it appeared then and it appears now. Thanks.
The fact remains that everything I have posted about his predictions is 100% accurate.
How can someone who is predicting this have made money investing.
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....
Its impossible because you would have been shorting the market for many years
while it went UP.
NOT ONE SINGLE FACT THAT I HAVE POSTED ON MR. SCHIFF'S PREDICTIONS HAS BEEN REFUTED.
WE WILL WAIT HERE FOREVER BEFORE HE DEMONSTRATES INTELLECTUAL HONESTY AND ACKNOWLEDGES JUST HOW WRONG HE HAS BEEN IN HIS PREDICTIONS.
YOU HAVE TO WONDER WHO SIRIUSLYWRONG THINKS HE IS FOOLING BY AVOIDING THAT CENTRAL FACT.
"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.
Last edited by Havakasha; 04-15-2012 at 03:45 PM.
STILL waiting for him to show me ONE FACT that I have presented here that is false. It will never happen. That should tell you everything you need to know about his INABILITY TO BE HONEST.
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
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.
Reply With Quote