President Obama Brings Facts to Romney and Ryan

[Havakasha]

Come on please refute this.... Tick tock



"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.

[SiriuslyLong]

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?

CAGR? I figured.

[SiriuslyLong]

Come on please refute this.... Tick tock



"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.

Hava the fabricator -- I already posted a "fair and balanced" assessment of predictions from several economists?

Do me a favor chump, make good on your offer to reciprocate on a book and buy me his new book coming in May???

[SiriuslyLong]

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.

A complete lack of honestly HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHA.

Man, my ribs hurt. The only complete lack of honesty is your inability to comment accordingly on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

9670 "likes" to 119 "dislikes". Can you figure out what % of people think highly of this and what % don't?

Nope. Let's just say that if you voted, it would make is 120 "dislikes" which still puts you in the extreme minority. Key word - EXTREME. Live on LMFAO.

[SiriuslyLong]

"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."

Screw you. I'll tell show you my portfolio as soon as you tell everyone how much you inherited from your great grandfather(s). LMFAO. I doubt you've worked an honest day since then.

[SiriuslyLong]

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.

Sorry a$$hole, I backed you up. I posted a link with a "fair and balanced" analysis of Schiff's predictions. Take some time to read them before reposting the same $hit you have. Talk about being a charlitan LMFAO. On the other hand, a charlitan probably knows what he is doing. Can't say the same for you.

[SiriuslyLong]

"Intellectually DISHONEST?"

No, Hava-gafa-kasha is not "intellectually dishonest. That's a compliment. He's plainly dishonest. Here's an example.

Lloyd, what do you think of this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

Let's wait and see the response? That is, IF he will respond. Highly doubtul, but goes to speak to the character of the individual.

[SiriuslyLong]

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

No, these are the facts - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

Care to speak to them (facts)? You were all over Schiff when you where trying to deride John about Laffer (Schiff's first victim in the video).

[SiriuslyLong]

So, still wondering if Hava-gafa-kasha is interested in the original question?

He agrees that "everybody" knows that ever increasing debt is unsustainable, but has yet to give all of us his assessment of what might be the reprocussion of ever increasing debt. PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US ALL. Film school should have taught you something???

98 posts and we are still waiting. My guess is that there will be 98,000 posts before we hear a peep out of the ideologue, and then he'll tell us all DEBTS DON'T MATTER.

[SiriuslyLong]

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.

Why don't you reciprocate and pick this up for me on your dime?