Peter Schiff on the Coming Economic Meltdown — Two Years Ago
So, is this a stopped clock being right twice a day? Or a little boy pointing out the emperor’s naked backside while being laughed at by his fellow pundits?
My favorite part: Ben Stein at 6:31 encouraging everyone to load up on all those “astonishing bargains” in financial sector stocks. So, I wonder how much of his own money Stein put on that bet?
I don’t know anything about investing. But if you don’t ever bother to go back and compare what your experts said would happen to what actually did happen, well, you’re terminally clueless.
In which case, you’re probably perfectly willing to accept Rush Limbaugh’s assertion that “the Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen.”
Well, I guess it’s true enough, at least in the sense that Obama is going to be the one to have to deal with cleaning up the mess. But somehow, I don’t think that’s what Rush meant when he said it.
November 29th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Yea, too bad no-one wanted to heed the warnings or consider Peter Schiff’s advice. Especially this, from wiki:
Schiff was an economic adviser to Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign. Schiff made the following statement concerning Paul’s economic revitalization plan.
“We need a plan that stimulates savings and production not more of the reckless borrowing and consumption that got us into this mess in the first place. Ron Paul’s plan is the only one that amounts to a step in the right direction. If you want meaningful change – for the better that is – Ron Paul is the only candidate capable of delivering it.”[10]
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:50 am
Here is an SNL skit that is really funny, poking fun at all the liberals involved, except for Dodd, but the cast is only so large. This is the original uncut version. The one on the NBC web site has the section of the billionaires cut out because hell hath no furry like a philanthropist scorned.
http://msunderestimated.com/SNLBailoutSkit.wmv
watch the eyes of the actress playing Nancy, she has it down perfectly.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:55 am
There were a lot of people warning of this collapse a lot more than two years ago. Many in the Bush administration, and Bush himself. Here is an Investor’s Business Daily piece from a couple days ago. Of course some didn’t want to upset the apple cart
Which of course brings us back to Senate Bill 190 and Chris Dodd
The way I read the summary of the bill is that Dodd blocked it even though it had enough support from Democrats, but what do I know, as has been pointed out here repeatedly, I’m an idiot.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:43 am
The problem here, and I mean right here on this thread. Is that this again seems to degenerating into a totally partisan argument. The sad truth that I see is that everyone on both sides of the aisle that had something to gain from this was just willing to let it go.
I found this article the other day too:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28001417/
Bubbles really seem to be bombs with a burning fuse. There’s a valid historical model for that and yet, no one wants to be the person to put out the fuse, because up until the bomb goes off, times are great.
What historically makes an argument bad here is a totally partisan approach. Pointing out what the guys on the other side did as being the sole architects of the collapse while pointing to the guys on your side as being completely infallible is what damages the credibility of statement’s discussing this. There are a lot of folks, both Republican and Democrat, who should be held responsible for this one.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:36 am
Absolutely, I’ve said many times that both sides have their hands in this. Let’s face it this has been brewing since the Carter administration, there have been a lot of people pass through congress and the White House in that time. I don’t know if you read the Times piece the IBD article was referring to but it was blaming the Bush administration completely. This whole Lies.com site is almost completely partisan from a leftist viewpoint. I have posted SB 190 several times and I’ll bet no one has read it. They don’t want to read it because then it would show the hand Democrats have most recently had in blocking regulations that would have either stopped this meltdown completely or at least made it less severe. Sad part is Franks and Dodd are on Obama’s short list of folks to fix it and they are the very individuals that caused it. I’m not being partisan here I’m being truthful. Can anyone here give me a bill that Bush vetoed that would have helped us avoid this? That is all the president can do, he can ask congressmen to sponsor a bill he wrote or supports (SB 190 109th congress and SB 1100 110th congress) but it is up to congress to pass legislation, and remember who has had control of congress recently.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I am so sorry to have reality wake you up again shcb, but this was your direct quote: “I don’t agree with… blaming Bush or anyone in this current administration except maybe for AIG and maybe Bear Stearns”
http://www.lies.com/wp/2008/09/14/in-which-i-write-a-cranky-letter-to-cathleen-decker-of-the-la-times/#comment-108010
You are way too partisan to claim an unbiased view. Deregulation is what caused this mess. Which party is all for more deregulation and more tax cuts for the wealthiest? The Rs. There is plenty of blame for both sides of the aisle, but let us at least face reality for a change. Please? The Rs have been in control of congress since 94 and the Ds have had a nominal lead (but certainly not filibuster-proof) since 06. Your guy has been in the white house for the last 8.
So… How are things going?
Should we compare the economy under Clinton vs the economy under bush? You folks aren’t good at governing. And by that I mean governing anything larger than a breadbox.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Oh I’m as partisan as they come but not with this set of facts. Can you give me an example of Bush stopping legislation that would have minimized this situation? I’ve given you two of Dodd stopping legislation.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Jayson’s comment about near everyone supporting a bubble up until it pops holds a lot of truth, fault certainly lies on both sides of the aisle.
Without getting into details of why the Dodd thingy stopped, e.g. whether or not the Republicans really wanted it to pass or not, or if their was unacceptable pork attached, etc., some unavoidable facts remain. The Bush administration has held tremendous power since 2000 and now your economy is in shambles and you’ve resorted to trillion dollar borrowings to bail out gigantic failed corporations. Heckuva job.
On the plus side, all the bad American economic news and hope for change via Obama seems to have manifested in Canada as an urgent sense that Canada needs bailouts too. That raised the political temperature so that when our Conservative government failed to include any fiscal stimulis in their fall economic update, the opposition parties sensed a boiling point, formed an unlikely coalition and are asking the governor general to allow the coalition to govern with the conservatives being relegated to opposition status. In a couple hours our conservative prime minister will be pleading with Canadians for their understanding, support, and rejection of the coalition. That makes little difference until there is another election, until then such decisions are in the hands of the governor general.
She alone will be deciding whether this government survives or whether the reigns of power are passed to the coalition.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
There were 12 Democrats and 9 Republicans on the committee, if Democrats wanted the bill to proceed all they had to do is vote yea. Dodd is the Chairman, even if Democrats vote yea, he can still stop it from going to the floor for debate and a vote unilaterally. It is not clear to me which happened but in either case Republicans didn’t have the power to stop SB 190. Democrats did and did.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
and did the Republicans know that going into the process? and as a result did they do anything to help the measures pass and did they do anything to make it more unpalatable to their “opponents”?
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
As an insurance policy in case all hell broke loose (as it has) which would allow partisan hacks like yourself to point at this one item and say “Seee, see looky here, we tried but it’s all your fault hell hath frozen over!!!!”
Funny but over the past 8 years it has been abundantly clear that when Bush’s regime really wanted to get something passed, hell nor high water could stop it.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Can someone please explain to me why it is that companies like AIG, Citi – basically any Wall Street financial giant – received hundreds of billions in bailouts without having to present a plan, like the Big 3 had to?
I really don’t care either way, it’s not my money. I’m just curious as to why there seems to be such a huge double standard. Seems like if the cash is needed to protect investors and Wall Street types it’s just handed over – no problems, no questions.
But when it comes to saving blue-collar jobs there’s this big fru-fraw. Does anyone else find this strange? One reason I care is because I just bought a new GMC Canyon light pick-up truck in the spring, and I really don’t want to see them go under, at least until my 5 year warranty expires. :-)
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Note: I fully support the whole plan thing, I would never lend anyone that kind of dough unless I saw a plan. I’m just curious about the inconsistency.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
NL, stop asking questions like that. They make people uncomfortable. The answer is simple, lets see if I can spell it out for you.
Because delaying assistance to Wall Street (primarily republican) firms in order to set out in pen on paper how the money would be spent and accounted for, during a huge urgent crisis that was going to devastate the whole economy, well that would just be unconscionable and unpatriotic.
And because rushing head first into bail-outs for the heavily unionized auto-sector without first drafting a clear plan on how the money would be accounted for and spent would be unconscionable and just plain socialist.
Remember, the Wall Street rescue deals with mysterious financial packages of unknown value wrapped up by white collar primarily American workers and it will require virtually infinite sums of cash to return the financial sector to its state before the greed induced crisis exploded. Thus, in the eyes of a moran: a mysterious problem needs a mysterious, loosely defined solution.
In contrast, the auto-sector bail-outs deals with plants, products, and inventory whose worth and value have plummeted in part due to the fallout from the Wall streeet crisis but in greater part due to poor management and investment decisions. Also, it is primarily a blue collar problem. Thus, a tangible problem needs a tangible, well defined solution.
See, it’s simple. No one said it would be logical.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
What I find amazing about this thread is the video clip itself.
It perfectly illustrates how group think, entrenched powers and media talking heads arrogantly ridicule the intelligent analysts onto the sidelines – to everyone’s peril.
It is simply a brilliant find.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Just a couple of points. It’s funny to see people going ‘yeah, it was everyone’s fault, but it was really (points at the other side)’s fault’
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
guilty. So what’s your other point?
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Don’t answer the phone then hit enter without proofreading.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Knarly,
The SB 190 didn’t seem to have any pork in it, it was long, 119 pages or so and very detailed but everything seemed to be related to the subject at hand. Of course there were things in it the opposition didn’t like or it would have passed. But the point is many of the things people are blaming the Bush administration and Republicans for not doing were in that bill.
NL,
I’ll throw in my two cents worth. Asking for a plan from the auto makers was primarily just a reaction to all the negatives congress got from the public. When Congress gives out money in any amount there is usually a bunch of strings attached, they have given you the plan, they don’t ask for a plan. Secondly, for the most part the financial problems were caused by government, to a certain degree this was just congress paying for its screw up. The auto problems are caused by private companies and private unions so the approach is different. I thought it was a little silly myself, it reminded me of a homework assignment. Congress sent the auto makers home to come up with a plan, but if congress doesn’t like the plan they won’t give them the money. Did you notice the plan they came up with included developing electric cars but not substantial restructuring of union contracts? It’s like a teacher asking for a students opinion on a test and the student knowing what the teachers wants so he writes that down even though that is contrary to his opinion.
Jayson,
As I said before, I’m all for giving the other side its due, so why don’t all you guys start bashing Democrats and I’ll continue bashing Democrats, then we can all start getting along.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
knarls, NL
Looks like your PM just borked your Parliament. Nice trick! Parliament going to oust you? Dissolve Parliament! That oughta cement the opposition.
shcb
weren’t you also the guy who went on and on about how great the economy was doing over the summer? and besides its all the Dems fault blah blah blah… Oh yeah, lets ‘debate’ the responsibility for the bush-conomy. Totally non-partisan-like. Totally objective, fact based, analytical…
right…
December 4th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Heh, ya enkidu, today was a very interesting day up here to say the least.
I think our Governor General really had no other option. If the Liberal Party had a decent leader, who could speak english and wasn’t totally rejected in October’s election, I think the coalition would have been given a chance by her Excellency.
This leader they have, Dion, is a big screw-up. They didn’t even get their tape to the networks in time yesterday for their rebuttal to the Prime Minister’s address to the nation. And when it finally got to the networks (about an hour late!), it looked like it was a video on YouTube shot by a 10 year old.
Very, very entertaining though.
PS – You hear me, shcb, bashing the Liberal Party of Canada because their current leader is a tool. It’s called loving your country first, your favourite political party second. Just thought I would point that out to you :)
December 4th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
“borked” is precisely the right word… nice trick indeed, surprised he was able to seduce the governor general into the borking this morning, I thought she was more staid than that.
But, instead of cementing the opposition I bet it will actually start to crumble as the debate drags on, as the government makes fiscal concessions that undermine the new opposition coalition’s supposed reasons for being, and the public (me included) absorbs what is sure to be effective governement propoganda.
While the borking might have been acceptable for the circumstances of the day (i.e. rash actions by an opposition coalition who do not seem to be capable of putting together a viable alternative fiscal stimulus package any faster than the current government) it has set a bad precedent for Westminster Parliaments (England, Australia, Canada) – a precedent that did not exist before except in banana republics. It seems we’ve devolved to banana republic sensibilities, and we don’t even have any bananas. Maybe I’ll turn on the radio tonight and hear that the army has intervened for krist sake. Pathetic.
Parliament is adjourned until a new budget is presented on or about January 26. As the budget will have to satisfy all factions or else the government will fall, I expect lots of pork. That includes big tax cuts, even though big tax cuts are not yet on the table. It all will contribute to big new government deficits. The “conservatives” were already sliding down a slope of fiscal irresponsibility, we are now gathering speed towards a cliff edge come January with all parties contributing to the frenzy of throwing fiscal simulii at problems that have not even been properly defined yet…
Enk, you are right shcb was cheerleading for the economy and the ability of America to fund wars ad nauseum, I don’t think his cheerleading has stopped even with the reality of your fiscal / economic crisis / great recession.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
yea, having a leader with some popularity and who could speak English at least at Cretien’s level would have been nice, but I don’t think her Excellency’s decision was based on that. It was probably more to do with the coalition not having a ready alternative to the fiscal plan the government was preparing for their early budget, and just giving the government a short reprieve to either shape up or or fail in grande fashion.
If the government loses it’s confidence vote in January, how long until the coalition gets its act together with a decent fiscal stimulus package? I have zero confidence that the coalition could put together a fiscal package that would look any better than Dion’s ridiculous performance yesterday.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Do you, NL?
December 4th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
No, none at all. I want all parties to find new leadership. I’m not liking any of them at all. I think that’s a feeling shared by many Canadians, eh.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Oh, I’m sorry. I never meant to say Chris Dodd shouldn’t be tarred and feathered in this. He’s just one of a list.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Well me too at least. In the absence of any Canadian leader with Kenyan/Hawaiian roots, we’ll just have to wait a few more years until Justin decides he’s mature enough to pull the mace from the stone on Parliament Hill and start a new liberal era. The current batch of party leaders and hopefuls ought to have been eaten alive by then…
December 4th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
NL,
I’m sure you’re regularly critical of Liberals in your country, liberals in general give a person so much reason to be critical :-)
December 4th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Actually I just demand the highest standards in the leader of the party I choose to support the most. :)
December 4th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
shcb, Ha ha, yes indeed there is so much to find fault with in Liberals whose driving principles are social justice and the idea that “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Back to the topic, liberals are so much open about faults and areas for improvement in contrast to conservatives. Conservatives rarely admit or reveal anything of the sort even when proven to be utterly wrong (Bush economics) or caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Case in point, didn’t Bush say something recently like his biggest regret was that he believed the WMD intelligent he received which later turned out to be A HUGE MISTAKE MADE BY OTHER PEOPLE, instead of just coming out and admitting that his judgement on that issue was incredibly bad and that he mislead Congress in the accuracy of the information…
That said, my gawd man, isn’t all this petty bickering driving you nuts yet?
December 5th, 2008 at 8:12 am
this one is for our northern neighbors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe-DFZA6pR0
if you missed der realestaten Untergangen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNmcf4Y3lGM
December 5th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Thx Enk, it feels good to ROFL.
December 5th, 2008 at 11:18 am
LMAO! That was great enkidu, thanks!
December 5th, 2008 at 11:26 am
make sure you check out the real estate link below your filthy canadian hijinx link!
;-)
it is a bit like the wazzzza?! meme: it’s funny and hurts at the same time
and yeah, we are fuxored, big time
heck of a job bushie!