Peter Schiff 'Before Obama Leaves Office' Prediction

[toathis]

 

[William Tell]

Every single thread you have ever posted is Schiff bashing.

 

[dannno]

Every single thread you have ever posted is Schiff bashing.

lol, you know the OP has been waiting months to make this post.. probably started jacking it like a month ago but wouldn't let himself go over the edge until after the inauguration and he was finally able to put it up on the internet. Dude's probably sitting in several cups of batter right about now.

 

[silverhandorder]

Lol go f your self op. All your snowflake spaces belong to us.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

With over 95 million working age people currently out of the labor market, Schiff was right in that the real unemployment rate would be (is) north of 20%.

 

[Zippyjuan]

With over 95 million working age people currently out of the labor market, Schiff was right in that the real unemployment rate would be (is) north of 20%.

If you consider retired people unemployed. BLS only counts you if you don't have a job and are interested in finding one. Just to replace retiring workers you need 3.5 million more people to get a job every year.

 

[angelatc]

If you consider retired people unemployed. BLS only counts you if you don't have a job and are interested in finding one. Just to replace retiring workers you need 3.5 million more people to get a job every year.

Whatver. I remember an economy so good that women were leaving the workforce to stay home with their families. Now there is record employment with so many jobs a lot of us now have 2 or 3!

 

[Dr.No.]

With over 95 million working age people currently out of the labor market, Schiff was right in that the real unemployment rate would be (is) north of 20%.

Using that methodology, the unemployment rate has never been south of ~20%. Using the same unemployment number they have used for 20 years, it is sub 5%.

Now, you can argue that there are greater numbers of underemployed, discouraged workers other there. If you also include in underemployed workers (to their degree of underemployment), you come in at nearly 8% unemployment.

Net worth has nearly doubled under Obama. Total household debt is at 2008 levels. Net financial assets held by the economy are up like 40% under Obama. The stock market is doing very well. Almost the same number of government employees in 2008 as there are now (Clinton is pretty much the only president in the last 50 years to have shrunk the number in any significant manner). Incredibly low inflation.

Of course there are problems. Corporate debt is quite high (likely due to the low interest rates), student loan debt is high, Obamacare has done almost nothing to reduce healthcare costs, real income is only up about 1%/year under Obama (1.25%/year under Reagan and Clinton).

But if you just look at the raw numbers...think about it if the shoe were on the other foot. If Ron Paul had delivered those numbers, I think many on this website would make effusive comments towards him, and would probably try and justify the bad numbers in some way. All I am asking for is take the good numbers positively, and the bad numbers negatively, regardless of who is "in charge".

 

[Madison320]

The economy is great and we only had to borrow 10 trillion, print 3.5 trillion and keep rates at 0% to get there. But don't worry, debt, printing and 0% rates have no consequences according to certain people in this forum.

When the stuff hits the fan, here's what I want to know. Will the people that claim "debt doesn't matter" admit they were wrong? Or will they say everything was great, therefore it must be Trump's fault?

 

[specsaregood]

The economy is great and we only had to borrow 10 trillion, print 3.5 trillion and keep rates at 0% to get there. But don't worry, debt, printing and 0% rates have no consequences according to certain people in this forum.

When the stuff hits the fan, here's what I want to know. Will the people that claim "debt doesn't matter" admit they were wrong? Or will they say everything was great, therefore it must be Trump's fault?

What was it that the "revised" numbers the department of education just released showed?

According to an analysis of the revised data, at more than 1,000 colleges and trade schools, or about a quarter of the total, at least half the students had defaulted or failed to pay down at least $1 on their debt within seven years.

Oh yeah, that. Yeah, things are all hunky dory out there.

 

[Dr.No.]

The economy is great and we only had to borrow 10 trillion, print 3.5 trillion and keep rates at 0% to get there. But don't worry, debt, printing and 0% rates have no consequences according to certain people in this forum.

When the stuff hits the fan, here's what I want to know. Will the people that claim "debt doesn't matter" admit they were wrong? Or will they say everything was great, therefore it must be Trump's fault?

How about you hold yourself to the same standard? Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, Robert Murphy, Rand Paul...their predictions over the past decade or so have been horrible. Horrible. Ron Paul's predictions of default, hyperinflation, high interest rates, soaring metal prices, DJI of 4,000, etc. have not at all come to pass. Presumably, you believed in those predictions. Where are they, or you, admitting that they were wrong?

Of course debt matters in that if you print too much, you can get inflation. But the fears of hyperinflation, and the fears of default, are nonsense. I will readily admit it when shit hits the fan.

Because it is Trump, I will add the disclaimer that shit could hit the fan in other ways...he could start WWIII, cause a nuclear weapon to hit the US, etc. Heck, he could order the US to default. And there are always things that could destabilize a country and cause inflation due to a supply crunch (aforementioned wars, natural disaster, plagues). But the idea that the US will go bankrupt or that there will be hyperinflation from the monetary sides of things, that loan creation is going to skyrocket, etc. is silly.

 

[devil21]

Schiff was early. The bankers are putting the collapse onto Donald's administration instead of tarnishing Obama's. Donald will be pissing on our legs and telling us it's raining while his Goldman team turns the FRN into dust, as planned. Then they can blame it on the "populist voters" for causing such economic problems and naturally that means voting should be done away with. Hope you all are stocking up on hard assets.

 

[devil21]

How about you hold yourself to the same standard? Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, Robert Murphy, Rand Paul...their predictions over the past decade or so have been horrible. Horrible. Ron Paul's predictions of default, hyperinflation, high interest rates, soaring metal prices, DJI of 4,000, etc. have not at all come to pass. Presumably, you believed in those predictions. Where are they, or you, admitting that they were wrong?

Default already occurred. This is the END of a bankruptcy. Hyperinflation has already occurred by austrian standards. Do you think dumping offshore trillions back into the economy suddenly will have no impact on keynesian price inflation? Interest rates are rising and will have to rise faster and faster to soak up as much of those trillions as possible. Metal prices are manipulated and that's been proven and not debatable. Has the timing been wrong? Yes. That does NOT mean the predictions are wrong.

Of course debt matters in that if you print too much, you can get inflation. But the fears of hyperinflation, and the fears of default, are nonsense. I will readily admit it when shit hits the fan.

No you won't. You will be nowhere to be found on RPF when SHTF. No offense but if you don't understand that the US has been in default since 1933 then you still don't know half of the story.

Because it is Trump, I will add the disclaimer that shit could hit the fan in other ways...he could start WWIII, cause a nuclear weapon to hit the US, etc. Heck, he could order the US to default. And there are always things that could destabilize a country and cause inflation due to a supply crunch (aforementioned wars, natural disaster, plagues). But the idea that the US will go bankrupt or that there will be hyperinflation from the monetary sides of things, that loan creation is going to skyrocket, etc. is silly.

We shall see. But I don't expect to see you back when it happens. We'll all probably be cut off from the net at that time any way. All we can hope for is that the pain of the unwind is relatively brief.

 

[Dr.No.]

Default already occurred. This is the END of a bankruptcy. Hyperinflation has already occurred by austrian standards. Do you think dumping offshore trillions back into the economy suddenly will have no impact on keynesian price inflation? Interest rates are rising and will have to rise faster and faster to soak up as much of those trillions as possible. Metal prices are manipulated and that's been proven and not debatable. Has the timing been wrong? Yes. That does NOT mean the predictions are wrong.

Ron Paul did not say hyperinflation would occur by Austrian standards (which is in itself a nonsense statement...you can say anything happens by any standard using that logic). He and others said that there would be very REAL inflation. This is because he and others do not understand the banking system. They are stuck in reserve/loanable funds theory, because they approach everything from an ideological standpoint, not a scientific or data-driven one. Hell, I worked for RP in 2012, and I can say this is true.

Fundamentally, if Trump's policies cause more money to come in from offshore, that alone would cause very little inflation. Companies, banks, etc. are not money-limited. As long as they have good credit, they will have access to all the funds they need. The fact that an asset (which they would use to back up any loans they make) is now at home vs. offshore shouldn't have much effect on their future spending.

Lower taxes might marginally influence their long-term investment plans. And lower regulations would definitely spur new money creation as the private sector is spurred to start new investment. But that new investment would be met by new goods being provided, resulting in net no inflation. After all, the economy is like at 78% capacity right now, so new money creation should involve tapping into that extra 22%.

Timing is almost everything. Or, you just get broken/stuck clock syndrome. Ron Paul has been predicting doom and gloom since 1979 (and if there were records going back further, I am sure even before then). Peter and Paul Schiff have been saying the same since the 80s.

 

[devil21]

Ron Paul did not say hyperinflation would occur by Austrian standards (which is in itself a nonsense statement...you can say anything happens by any standard using that logic).

Austrian definition of inflation is increase in money supply. Keynesian definition is price inflation. You didn't know that? The dollar has been hyperinflated by Austrian standards. It hasn't been YET allowed to reflect as price inflation since it hasn't been allowed into the economy. That is going to change shortly.

He and others said that there would be very REAL inflation.

Not only has Trump already tried to put a smiley face on the coming keynesian price inflation but the Fed has been warning for months that price inflation is coming. You don't read the Fed statements, do you?

This is because he and others do not understand the banking system. They are stuck in reserve/loanable funds theory, because they approach everything from an ideological standpoint, not a scientific or data-driven one. Hell, I worked for RP in 2012, and I can say this is true.

Wow, you really said RP doesn't understand the banking system but you do? Ooook.

Fundamentally, if Trump's policies cause more money to come in from offshore, that alone would cause very little inflation. Companies, banks, etc. are not money-limited. As long as they have good credit, they will have access to all the funds they need. The fact that an asset (which they would use to back up any loans they make) is now at home vs. offshore shouldn't have much effect on their future spending.

What, then, is the point of repatriating foreign held funds if the corps don't intend to spend them? Once you understand that this is the end of the debt-based FRN system, you'll understand better why they are bringing it back. It's to spend it while it's still worth something! The end of the bankruptcy means the end of the FRN, since the FRN was based entirely on the bankruptcy of 1933, which is ending.

Lower taxes might marginally influence their long-term investment plans. And lower regulations would definitely spur new money creation as the private sector is spurred to start new investment. But that new investment would be met by new goods being provided, resulting in net no inflation. After all, the economy is like at 78% capacity right now, so new money creation should involve tapping into that extra 22%.

Keynesian word salad. "Might", "at like", "capacity", etc. Again, no offense but if you didn't know that this is the end of a long bankruptcy then your fundamental understanding of how the economy has functioned doesn't lead to much faith in your opinions. Spend more time studying history then you'll have a clearer picture.

Timing is almost everything. Or, you just get broken/stuck clock syndrome. Ron Paul has been predicting doom and gloom since 1979 (and if there were records going back further, I am sure even before then). Peter and Paul Schiff have been saying the same since the 80s.

Hmm....gold prices from 1979 till now? Even with serious manipulation? What they've been saying is coming to fruition now. Timing only matters if you're playing it like a casino instead of preparing for the inevitable end of the debt currency cycle.

 

[Dr.No.]

Austrian definition of inflation is increase in money supply. Keynesian definition is price inflation. You didn't know that? The dollar has been hyperinflated by Austrian standards. It hasn't been YET allowed to reflect as price inflation since it hasn't been allowed into the economy. That is going to change shortly.

And the flvorkian definition of inflation is the size of the icebergs. What the definition is to a certain branch of economics is completely irrelevant. Austrians believe that inflation is a monetary phenomenon, and that there should be an increase in the price level with monetary inflation. That hasn't happened.

The statement "allowed into the economy" is telling. It is the idea that the money supply and the price level have some tight connection, but they don't. Banks don't loan out reserves (the money supply), they create them out of thin air.

Not only has Trump already tried to put a smiley face on the coming keynesian price inflation but the Fed has been warning for months that price inflation is coming. You don't read the Fed statements, do you?

Do you read the Fed statements? The Fed has warned of higher inflation as they are planning on increasing interest rates. That will increase inflation as it increases costs throughout the economy. They'e also warned of higher inflation since they believe we might see a wider fiscal deficit. However, they have not at all warned of hyperinflation?

Wow, you really said RP doesn't understand the banking system but you do? Ooook.

That isn't a defense. Ron Paul does not understand the banking system; that is why his predictions have not come true. He lives in a gold-standard world, with a convertible currency and a fixed exchange rate. The dollar is a nonconvertible currency on a floating exchange rate.

What, then, is the point of repatriating foreign held funds if the corps don't intend to spend them?

That may be the intention, but that isn't what happened. We have data on this. When you give corporations tax relief, it results in a slightly higher stock market and slightly less inflation, though the effect is so marginal that other impacts can easily wipe it out. US corporations have about 2 trillion overseas. Granted, if they bring that all back at once that would be greater than any historical tax benefit, but over time (say 4/5 years), it would be very comparable. Moreover, the vast majority of the US economy is debt financed. Companies use their real assets as a collateral, and borrow to finance investment. Real funds are generally used in acquisitions (to offset higher finance costs), dividend payouts, and stock buybacks. While tax relief would make those overseas funds more valuable, it wouldn't change their assets to a significant degree. Moreover, corporations are already sitting on a few trillion dollars in domestic profit. Yet, they still haven't made too many investments, preferring to give out dividends and buy out stock. Companies and individuals do not make investments because they have access to funds. They do so because they see opportunity.

Once you understand that this is the end of the debt-based FRN system, you'll understand better why they are bringing it back. It's to spend it while it's still worth something! The end of the bankruptcy means the end of the FRN, since the FRN was based entirely on the bankruptcy of 1933, which is ending.

Explain to me how the FRN will be devalued.

Keynesian word salad. "Might", "at like", "capacity", etc. Again, no offense but if you didn't know that this is the end of a long bankruptcy then your fundamental understanding of how the economy has functioned doesn't lead to much faith in your opinions. Spend more time studying history then you'll have a clearer picture.

Appeal to ignorance and attacking the person all in one, huh?

Hmm....gold prices from 1979 till now? Even with serious manipulation? What they've been saying is coming to fruition now. Timing only matters if you're playing it like a casino instead of preparing for the inevitable end of the debt currency cycle.

They have cried about bread lines, currency crises, US default, rocket-high interest rates, and yes, hyperinflation. Ron Paul in the early 80s thought the end was coming when inflation was briefly high.

Also, is the price of gold is the end-all be all of inflation? Why then, from 1980 to 2005, was price of gold was basically flat (fluctuating between 200 and 400ish)? I mean, there was intense monetary inflation during that time. Huge government deficits, etc. But the price of gold really didn't soar...why? It takes 20+ years to work through the system (higher prices in 2006)? Does the fact that around that time, China and India started buying more gold, not change your interpretation of the rising price? Heck, I generally think that the price of gold has gone up because people think it is a hedge against catastrophe, and post financial-crises, people are very scared. The fact that it isn't at 2,000, to me, is people realizing their fears of hyperinflation and bread lines was idiotic. If you didn't have fearmongerers like Schiff and Alex Jones screaming about gold, it'd be even lower.

 

[AZJoe]

How about you hold yourself to the same standard? Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, Robert Murphy, Rand Paul...their predictions over the past decade or so have been horrible. Horrible. Ron Paul's predictions of default, hyperinflation, high interest rates, soaring metal prices, DJI of 4,000, etc. have not at all come to pass. Presumably, you believed in those predictions. Where are they, or you, admitting that they were wrong?

Huh? Looks like we have another irrational Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney style Keynesian faith cultist. Paul & Co. have been eerily spot on in their economic predictions. National debt doubling rate now only eight years, spending, fed balance sheets, manipulation of interest rates, reduction in labor force participation rate, shifting from full-time to part time career force, and on and on. Suppression of interest rates, central bank mechanism, manipulation statistics and definitions provide temporary stop-gaps and suppressions of truth. Yet, it is still simply mathematics and logic. Reserve currency status has also allowed can kicking to extend much longer than other nations could have gotten away with. Paul, Woods, Murphy have not predicted dates or timings for breaking points. Specific timing of breaking points no one can accurately predict. However, the direction, the path, are all accurate.

 

[angelatc]

Of course there are problems. Corporate debt is quite high (likely due to the low interest rates), student loan debt is high, Obamacare has done almost nothing to reduce healthcare costs, real income is only up about 1%/year under Obama (1.25%/year under Reagan and Clinton).

But if you just look at the raw numbers...think about it if the shoe were on the other foot. If Ron Paul had delivered those numbers,

That would never have happened.

 

[angelatc]

Lower taxes might marginally influence their long-term investment plans. .....

Bond markets, insurance policies, and fixed income investments are not marginal.

 

[AZJoe]

Net worth has nearly doubled under Obama. Total household debt is at 2008 levels. Net financial assets held by the economy are up like 40% under Obama. The stock market is doing very well. Almost the same number of government employees in 2008 as there are now (Clinton is pretty much the only president in the last 50 years to have shrunk the number in any significant manner). Incredibly low inflation.

The drive to try to glorify the Obama period is blinding No from reality.

The stock market correlates very closely now with fed policy. It is artificially pumped up. During the past eight years, the billionaire class, the political glass, and government service class have done well. Yet the ordinary people are doing worse. Even despite such efforts to pump up certain assets class and like keeping the stock market hyped, median real household income has fallen as well as median net worth while consumer credit is rising.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...usehold-worth-one-third-less-than-under-bush/