Mish vs. Peter Schiff

Anything less than the number of years you stipulated.... is not investment, but in fact speculation! :)

Schiff doesn't speculate :D

I didn't say he speculated. Specify where I said he takes high risk gambles based on guessing or unfounded opinions. Looking at where a market is going to be in 2 years is not speculation, IF it's based on sound economics.


Definition of speculation does NOT include a time frame.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure it's been pointed out but it's worth repeating. We are in a period of deleveraging which appears to be coming to an end. This is seperate and distinct from deflation, a decrease in the money supply, which when one considers the trillions of brand new "dollars", is obviously not happening.
 
Japan has been on quantitative easing for ten years plus, not only did it *NOT* suffer hyperinflation, it's currency has appreciated heavily.

Why do the people who say that the dollar will weaken because of all the "money printing" (e.g. low interest rates) - people like Jim Rogers - why are they buying yen when the BoJ has been doing for the last ten plus years what the Fed is only now doing?

Japan also didn't have about 10 trillion dollars sitting overseas waiting to come flying back to the USA. The yen hasn't appreciated against gold. Just other fiat currencies.
 
Japan also didn't have about 10 trillion dollars sitting overseas waiting to come flying back to the USA. The yen hasn't appreciated against gold. Just other fiat currencies.

Actually, the yen has done better than gold.

1. yen
2. dollar (but this is slipping)
3. gold

is how to rank asset classes over the last 4months
 
"Mish has been predicting deflation (which we are in right now) while Schiff was predicting inflation and hyperinflation (wrong)."

Don't let yourself become too short-sighted.

Schiff, like Mish, knows that the artifically induced business cycle includes the BOOM and the BUST. We are in the BUST cycle at the moment, but the problem is that while inflation is a real possibility based on the actions of the FED at the moment, the real threat of hyperinflation is also possible. In 95% of the cases of modern historic hyperinflation, it happens during a deep deflationary period because of the actions of either the issuing government or the issuing central bank.

If you think that Schiff is wrong just because you don't see inflation or hyperinflation at the moment then I would say that you are stuck in a deflationary illusion...this is not over by a long shot.

Remember, there are different types of deflation just as there are different types of inflation. The primary causes in monetary terms are based on either an expansion or contraction of the money supply, this is not the case in this deflationary slump. What we are witnessing is not a contraction in the money supply, but the effects of the BUST. At the moment we are seeing a disinflation from the overly inflated BOOM cycle. I do expect, as does Peter Schiff, Ron Paul and others that we will continue to see a deepening deflationary dip, but to counter that dip the FED has gone absolutely nuts. The threat of hyperinflation is very, very real. The problem with the central bankers is that they cannot judge when to turn the the printing press off.

One of the problems at the moment is that there is a great deal of "hoarding" going on, particularly in Treasuries, mainly out of fear, but that log-jam is about to be loosened and when it does and Trillions of dollars flood the economy from all that "hoarding" combined with the multiple Trillions that the FED has and is injecting, the quantitative easing policy that it has embarked on and the unknown tricks they are currently playing...then hyperinflation is a very real danger.

Personally, I would say prepare for it.
 
If the Fed can cause inflation, then why can't they also rein it in by raising interest rates, once signs of inflation start to pick up?? Why should hyperinflation necessarily be the end result? Doesn't the Fed have the power to "mop up liquidity" and hasn't it precisely shown that it has been able to do that in the past? What is different today?

Keep in mind also that Volcker is on Obama's team. Although oh yeah, some people say he is a globalist co-conspirator of the elite foreign bankers so he is still one of those no good-nik people. :rolleyes:
 
I'm reading Crashproof right now and you gotta hand it to Schiff, he was uncannily prescient. Amazing. Amazing. All the other dipsticks who are running things do not even seem to know how to apply common sense...and all the other Central Banks follow suit like lemmings over the cliff.
I like both of these guys hugely. Mish and Schiff, they feel like part of the family. :D

I agree. :) I'm more familiar with Mish at this point, so I can't decide yet. Oh, the pressure! :eek:
 
If you have noticed over the last couple of decades the interest rate spread tolerance in the economy has narrowed. At one time the economy could bear an interest rate hike that is no longer the case. That is normally a sign that the fiat monetary substructure of the economy has reached the terminal point in its life-span. There comes a point when the massive debt upon which the entire fiat monetary system rest becomes so saturated that it begins to siphon off all economic viability from commerce. You may have also noticed that at one time it took far less stimulation by the government to induce economic growth, now it takes a great deal, in fact there are some estimates that to achieve $1.00 of economic growth it now takes nearly $7.00 of government direct and indirect intervention. This too is a sign that the fiat economy is in a terminal stage.

Another problem is that such a contraction, via a drastic rise in interest rates, would absolutely destroy the economy within a short period of time. Remember, part of the problem we now face is due to the FED tightening credit a couple of years ago, this pulled back the curtains on other problems, particularly in the housing sector. Every artificially induced BOOM will eventually BUST, the question is what will be the extent of the BUST and the extent of the reaction taken by the FED? Obviously, just judging from the government’s CPI numbers we are not actually experiencing a deep deflationary slump at the moment; in fact even oil is still above 2003 pricing levels. Food prices are, based on the CPI, still hitting over 6% inflation rate, along with most other sectors measured by the CPI. So, something else is going on, something that is hidden from view. That which is hidden from view is systemic insolvency. This government has been technically bankrupt for the last several years, but now we are witnessing it move into effective bankruptcy. The only difference between a business and the government is that the government can continue to print money to use in its bankrupt state, but only for so long.

Now, all these factors are involved with what is happening this is not the same economy it was even 10 years ago. The FED, in its history, has been a dismal failure if we are looking at its mandate verses its record. Any system that contravenes the natural market forces will always eventually fail. Like all fiat monetary systems eventually reach the terminal point in its life span, so too does the manipulation of the market.

The FED is not, nor has it ever been omnipotent when it comes to money or the markets. Since 1913, it has inflated away nearly 97% of the purchase value of the Dollar, that fact alone eventually has an effect on the overall economy. Since every Dollar is nothing more than a legal notification of a debt obligation, in other words, an IOU, the economy can only operate with double liabilities for a determinate length of time. Similar to our “national debt” it is absolutely impossible to pay that debt down or pay it off under a fiat economy. All that has been done, similar to the Social Security Trust Fund, is a huge Ponzi scheme. They swap old debt for new debt, borrowing and re-borrowing to satisfy the debt obligation; that too can only continue until critical mass is reached and the system begins to implode. We are now seeing the beginning of that implosion.

If you look at historic fiat systems you will basically see a similar pattern of destruction that we are now witnessing. Everything associated and dependent upon the fiat Dollar will meet the same fate as the currency itself: total collapse.

The FED has injected more money in the last few months than has ever been injected in the history of our country in an attempt to keep the life-support going, it will not work.

Hyperinflation is not just a monetary event; it is not like regular inflation. Hyperinflation is a combination of rapid and massive monetary injection combined with a loss of confidence in the money. Normally, as I stated, hyperinflation occurs when there has been a deepening deflationary event combined with a massive response from the issuing institution or government. The people lose confidence in both the money and the government, they lose their trust in the government to provide solutions and the lose confidence in the value of their money or in its security.

In such cases there is no way the FED could control any excesses. Likewise, if there is even extremely high regular inflation, it will be very difficult for the FED to “mop up liquidity” in the very fragile economic environment in which we now live, by doing so, it would simply bring about another massive BUST. In fact, we have been seeing cycle after cycle take place as the FED tries to balance on the edge of the razor. This is a very different economy than the one that Volcker had to deal with, in fact, just about everything is different. There are some very odd things taking place and even odder reactions from the FED, things that have never been done in this country. As I said, they are fighting much more than a simple BUST cycle and we should prepare for what comes next.
 
If the Fed can cause inflation, then why can't they also rein it in by raising interest rates, once signs of inflation start to pick up?? Why should hyperinflation necessarily be the end result? Doesn't the Fed have the power to "mop up liquidity" and hasn't it precisely shown that it has been able to do that in the past? What is different today?

Keep in mind also that Volcker is on Obama's team. Although oh yeah, some people say he is a globalist co-conspirator of the elite foreign bankers so he is still one of those no good-nik people. :rolleyes:

we can't just raise rates and magically stop inflation because the world controls 9 trillion dollars in dollar reserves. We can raise rates to prevent the dollar from going to zero. If we raise rates to 20% (i.e. pull a Volcker), then China will lend their dollars out at 18%, Saudi Arabia will lend their's out at 16%, Europe will lend them out at 14%, etc... You'll have inflation if you raise rates or lower rates right now. Long term, they could have preserved the dollar by raising rates. Instead, they are pushing it off a cliff.
 
we can't just raise rates and magically stop inflation because the world controls 9 trillion dollars in dollar reserves. We can raise rates to prevent the dollar from going to zero. If we raise rates to 20% (i.e. pull a Volcker), then China will lend their dollars out at 18%, Saudi Arabia will lend their's out at 16%, Europe will lend them out at 14%, etc...
How would this cause inflation?
 
I didn't say he speculated. Specify where I said he takes high risk gambles based on guessing or unfounded opinions. Looking at where a market is going to be in 2 years is not speculation, IF it's based on sound economics.

Definition of speculation does NOT include a time frame.

:rolleyes: I was extending on your comments, not replying to anything you specifically said.

I thought it would have been obvious, considering that it was a large detachment from your previous point... I guess I should have made it more clearer... :rolleyes:

I just wanted to use the number of years as a reference.
 
It seems the question is with whom do you go 'all in' ? I think if you are gambling then you place your bets and see but if you're trying to save for important things like retirement you should be hedged in this environment. I have taken some of Schiff's advice and been burned and I have taken some of Mish's advice and been burned but I think a balance is in order and so mostly I'm still about even in my retirement accounts as I was 1 year ago.
As an aside remember both still view gold as a good long term buy.
 
I think I will follow schiff but listen to them all. I chose schiff because he is pretty much one of the few that I listen to, and this few include him, jim rogers, gerald celente, ron paul, and such. even the fella that argued with schiff over that short dollar rally agreed with schiff about everything else. Hell Citibank last week announced that they see gold going to 2K next year, I believe on bloomberg or yahoo. So I think schiff is straight. Lets look at it this way...we can only do so much in terms of saving our savings and investing them. My 2 copper pennies ;)
 
Actually, the yen has done better than gold.

1. yen
2. dollar (but this is slipping)
3. gold

is how to rank asset classes over the last 4months

The choosing of one's presentation currency or unit of account is the most important decision an investor makes. The currencies trend over years and decades not months. When a currency is chosen then everything else becomes a portfolio asset; including other currencies. This is where Schiff is superior to Mish; in using gold as a currency and not as a portfolio asset. The current yen gold price is 76,341.91. The Yen and all investments denominated therein have been absolutely decimated and it has performed well compared to other currencies.

goldyen.gif

HAL10.gif
 
theoakman said:
we can't just raise rates and magically stop inflation because the world controls 9 trillion dollars in dollar reserves. We can raise rates to prevent the dollar from going to zero. If we raise rates to 20% (i.e. pull a Volcker), then China will lend their dollars out at 18%, Saudi Arabia will lend their's out at 16%, Europe will lend them out at 14%, etc...
jon_perez said:
How would this cause inflation?
Chase said:
Think of those dollar reserves as past inflation stored in a bottle.
Hmmm... at 14% interest though, I doubt there would be many takers, would there? So wouldn't the money just remain stuck and won't create inflation?
 
Robert Prechter would agree with both Mish and Schiff. He thinks we'll first have a severe deflation because the implosion of debt will outrun the gov'ts efforts to inflate. At that point, he recommends scooping up assets at bargain prices and holding them as a hedge against the inevitable hyperinflation that will follow.

Precter's "Conquer the Crash" came out in 2000 and it reads like today's headlines. Uncannily accurate, though premature.
 
Yet another scenario to consider is Roubini's stag-deflation... little to no growth coupled with prices slowly declining over time (great for savers and the environment, bad for corporations).

If you believe the thesis that central banks really have no control over the [broad] money supply, then it is a valid one.

Most everyone on this forum seems to have swallowed the gross oversimplification of monetary theory seen on documentaries like money masters, etc...

The truth is that even when Bernanke talks about "helicopter drops" of money, he is only allowed by regulations to inject it at one point of the system. This is why quantitative easing has not been as successful in defeating deflation in Japan as one might imagine.

When Greenspan asserted that central bankers have "gotten the dollar to behave as it were gold", I doubt he was spotuing malarkey and he must have been genuinely referring to some parameters he was observing. It could really be unrestrained credit expansion (not exactly within the means of the Fed to control) that was responsible for the boom rather than wanton expansion of the base money supply. With credit now deflating everywhere, no amount of monetary pumping can hope to compensate for it.

Our fiat money IS backed by DEBT, and with no one willing to take on debt now, how in heck can new money come into being??
 
Last edited:
Deflation is decrease in the money supply not falling prices, right? So right now we don't have deflation, just low velocity with the dollar causing prices to fall? The money supply has not decreased just it's not moving as quick as it was thus prices are falling.
 
Actually, I believe the money supply has effectively deflated, but it's not as straight-foward as that. Because the Fed and other central banks as well as governments have been trying to paper over this mess by pushing new money into the system, it has masked the deflation, though has not gotten rid of it, but for all practical purposes the money they're creating may as well not exist because it's not doing anything (yet). There are many parallels between the Crash of '08 to the Crash of '29 which you can hear Bob Hoye (who explains why he believes the bond market/credit market makes hyperinflatioin impossible) discuss them here. Was the Crash of '29 deflation? Well, probably not as much as it was a bust to an inflationary bubble; deflation didn't really start until a mass of banks started failing, and the total impact of it wasn't fully felt until Hoover's last years in office. And so even though we had a bust last year that was eerily similar to that of '29, it may not mean we'll have deflation this time in 2 or 3 years, since the central banks and many other regulations may possibly keep the banking system from failing and thus the money supply from contracting. There are no guarantees either way. Be on your toes! (I don't think a deflation like what happened during the 30s is necessary, and should be avoided, but overall I think net deflation would be better than inflation, as there must be a correction)
 
Back
Top