Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Peter Schiff - Empire Collapse & Emergence of Asia

Recs

13

October 30, 2008 – Comments (15) | RELATED TICKERS: UDN , GLD , SKF

This is my response to awallejr and any other Fools, who believe the answer lies with more regulation and more government intervention.

Peter Schiff covers it here:

Peter Schiff - Empire Collapse & Emergence of Asia - Part 1 of 3

Peter Schiff - Empire Collapse & Emergence of Asia - Part 2 of 3

Peter Schiff - Empire Collapse & Emergence of Asia - Part 3 of 3

 

15 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 30, 2008 at 1:38 PM, awallejr (78.92) wrote:

How can I take any person purporting to be intelligent seriously anymore when that person goes on national TV and says "women don't want to work."  He is now, in my view, a clown.  I don't even want to listen to what he might have to say. And the female interviewer, whose name I forget, should have absolutely taken him to task on that argument instead of joking. I'd rather listen to Roubini. And while he talks as if he is the grim reaper, at least he is extremely knowledgeable, clearly intelligent, and doesn't come out with clearly indefensible, retarded statements.

With that aside, the answer absolutely lies with better regulation and intervention.  We are a nation of laws.  That is what we are built on.  It is when those laws are not enforced and people are left to their own devices that problems inevitably occur, mainly people taking advantage of other people.  We saw that in 1929 and we allowed it to happen again starting in around 2000.

We all acknowledge that the country and world are in a crisis.  You go delude yourself into thinking it can self correct without destroying a ton of lives.  Fortunately you aren't in any position of real power.

 

You know I was listening to Bloomberg and there was a discussion on the 3rQ GDP report.  The guest, whose name I forget, was arguing that government intervention probably skewered the numbers without which it the numbers would have been worse.  He was arguing that as a bad thing.  I scratch my head and think "so it would have been better if things were worse?"

Report this comment
#2) On October 30, 2008 at 2:01 PM, kdakota630 (29.72) wrote:

awallejr - Are we to believe that you won't listen to anyone who says one thing you don't agree with, whether or not that person is correct in that statement?  I must say, that's got to be one of the most narrow-minded things I've ever heard.

And frankly, I don't understand what was so wrong with what he said in the first place, other than it's considered politically incorrect.  My wife doesn't want to work, but she does home daycare to help pay the bills.  If we didn't need the money, she wouldn't.

Hell, I don't want to work, but I have to in order to earn a living.  If I could live off my investments, you can be sure I wouldn't be working 70-hour weeks.

Report this comment
#3) On October 30, 2008 at 4:41 PM, awallejr (78.92) wrote:

Kdakota, when a person says a clearly RETARDED statement with a straight face on national tv, a statement no different than if he made a racist one, damn straight I can't take him seriously anymore.  Imagine your having an apparently intelligent conversation with a person you don't really know well then out of the blue that person makes a completely outrageous comment.  Odds are you will say "welp gotta go."

And reread your LAST point.  I would have said most PEOPLE probably don't want to work. But Schiff is obviously an ignorant sexist.

Report this comment
#4) On October 30, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Harold71 (< 20) wrote:

awallejr,

You should pay more attention to how things actually work. 

With that aside, the answer absolutely lies with better regulation and intervention.

Better regulation of what?  While there were significant problems with lending standards, the primary cause of this crisis is clearly the Federal Reserve and their ULTRA LOW interest rate policy.  Without this cheap money flowing, the housing bubble simply would have never formed.  These are the facts.

The guest, whose name I forget, was arguing that government intervention probably skewered the numbers without which it the numbers would have been worse.  He was arguing that as a bad thing.  I scratch my head and think "so it would have been better if things were worse?"

So you prefer to be lied to?  You like the truth sugar-coated or viewed through rose-colored glasses, that's fine, lots of others including me prefer to stick with reality.  If reality is harsh, so be it.

Report this comment
#5) On October 30, 2008 at 5:01 PM, awallejr (78.92) wrote:

Harold, the FED simply was not the primary casue of this crisis.  I don't know what more I can say to get this point across.  They aren't a POLICING or REGULATING agency.  They had no control over the behavior of the lenders, brokers, bond makers, agency rating companies, etc.  It was the deregulating that allowed all the loose lending and over leveraging, as well as the outright lying and manipulating of appraisal reports and loan applications by people that had zero connection to the Fed. Greed run amok.  Period, plain and simple.

And as for being lied to, my fault for not being clearer. You misunderstood, what I meant by skewered.  The GDP wasn't as bad as expected because the Government interventions helped improve the stat.  The guest was arguing that if the Government interventions didn't occur then the GDP would have been worse. I on the other hand have no problem with apparently positive government intervention.

Report this comment
#6) On October 30, 2008 at 5:18 PM, russiangambit (29.43) wrote:

> How can I take any person purporting to be intelligent seriously anymore when that person goes on national TV and says "women don't want to work."

awallejr, he said preganant women don't want to work, and he is right, they don't. It is a disgrace how the US treats pregnant women, only 8 weeks leave and nothing before the birth, it is barbaric. I saw those 8-9 months pregnant girls in the office, it is hard for them to even walk but they still come to work because they want to save their vacation time for after the baby comes. Nowhere in Europe you will see it, it is barbaric, no two ways about it.

And he is also right that many women in the US don't want to work . Not because they don't have any aspirations but because most working places are not flexible and it is very hard to work full day and take care of the family. Given the choice they would work a half-day or stay at home for a few years.

So, can we get back to the ecnomic issues now?

 

 

Report this comment
#7) On October 30, 2008 at 8:44 PM, awallejr (78.92) wrote:

Baloney, he said nothing about pregnant women.  Listen to the clip again in Deej's blog. And all I can say in light of your comment about what "many women want" is welp I gotta go ;p

Report this comment
#8) On October 30, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Harold71 (< 20) wrote:

Yes there was massive leverage in the system, but who supplied the leverage?  The FED.  And they did it CHEAP.  That was key.

 awallejr - They aren't a POLICING or REGULATING agency.  

They have the most regulating power of all!  They regulate the price of money!  HAHA!  You don't get it!

I guarantee you that the housing bubble would not have formed if interest rates were 8% (or somewhere reasonable -- NOT 1 FREAKING PERCENT) constantly from the tech crash on.  That's just a reality.  The housing bubble only floated with artificially low interest rates.

Please do yourself a favor and read some Fleckenstein on MSN Money if you don't like Schiff.  He's good.  You just don't get it yet, and it's obvious you like gov't propaganda, that would need to be altered as well.

Fleckenstein 7/06.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/ContrarianChronicles/TheEconomysNextTimeDownHasBegun.aspx

Report this comment
#9) On October 31, 2008 at 12:57 AM, awallejr (78.92) wrote:

Harold what you don't get is that interest rates and regulating people are two different things.  You even started a blog quoting Ayn Rand yet  her philosphy apparently alludes you.

I told you what happened.  I was there.  I saw. As did many other colleagues.  We were there in the late 1980s too.  Maybe this analogy might work.  If a person drops a wallet containing $10,000 with a drivers license, what is the odds it would be returned with all the cash.  Sadly, I suspect rarely.  The Fed dropped the wallet.  But the greed of un- "policed" people made them keep it.  While I supose you could argue that but for the person dropping the wallet the situation of it not being returned would therefore never occur, nevertheless the INDIVIDUAL'S ultimate choice was still theirs.

Report this comment
#10) On October 31, 2008 at 1:44 AM, tz7bandit (< 20) wrote:

Hi awalle,

 It is apparent that you do not understand, your argument is that BIG BROTHER should be looking over your shoulder making sure you walk the line. Not only does your "analysis"  show a complete lack of fundamental economic princibles, but even worse is your misconception about the US and its princibles.

We are a nation of rebels, who rebelled against laws and formed our own nation....

Because Individuals that use analysis and logic, like schiff,  are not in power is the reason we are in this mess,  People like you and people who support a propaganda machine like obama are only going to make things worse and drawn out. If you people believe the trash he says you deserve everything he is going to steal from you and give to others.

 

Report this comment
#11) On October 31, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Wraithlok (47.05) wrote:

derogitory or not... he has very very valid points with the credit bubble.  

 

I agree with him there.. enough so I am piling into commodities

Report this comment
#12) On October 31, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Harold71 (< 20) wrote:

Actually I just really like what Ayn Rand said about money in those quotes.  They make a lot of sense to me, so I thought I'd share them.  I don't actually know much about the rest of her "philosophy."  (But you might want to look up "allude" vs. "elude.")

I think managing an economy by having a small group of "know-all" men pick the "correct" interest rate is absolutely the most asinine economic policy of all time.  It is not true capitalism.  We're paying for the mismangement of the money supply now and for many, many years into the future.  And the Fed watched it all happen.  They did not stop reporting M3 numbers because it was too expensive -- it was just getting too scary.

The Fed deserves the blame for most of the crisis, you can count on a blog entry for that.  I get that regulating money and people are two different things, but the cheap money factor is so huge that without it, the bubble blowing machine simply cannot turn on.  It just won't work.

Report this comment
#13) On October 31, 2008 at 2:48 PM, awallejr (78.92) wrote:

Hi tz7

This has nothing to do with Big Brother, this has to do with why we are in the current mess we are in.  I would really be repeating myself now tho.  No one is asking for people to behave in a predetermined, completely conforming way.  What I do want, however, is protection against the crooks, thieves, criminals, etc.  That's one of the designs behind laws.

I am very aware of this nation's roots.  Contrary to your assertion, we built it on LAWS, that is the real uniqueness of this Country.  The rest of the world revolved around the rule of power (Kings, Emperor's etc.).  There are quite a few books I can suggest regarding this Country's colonial history if you wish, but we certainly didn't "rebel against laws" but rather rebelled against absolute power in a monarchy.

harold71

Yeah I know I picked the wrong one after I hit post, but you can't edit and sometimes the scotch makes me sloppy;p  And while I will not argue with you regarding the FED in CONCEPT since your points are understandable, nor will I disagree that FED loose monetary policy under Greenspan certainly was a part to blame, the bottom line still was the outright greed of all those brokers who were basically behaving as children let loose in a candy store. 

Had they kept the rules the same pre-1999, then even with that loose money things would be no where near as dangerous as it is now. 

Report this comment
#14) On November 02, 2008 at 6:43 AM, TheParadox (94.29) wrote:

Awall

 

"Contrary to your assertion, we built it on LAWS, that is the real uniqueness of this Country."

 I thought we built this country on the grounds that people should be protected from the government... free markets, free speech... fair & blind justice... not on laws.

 

peter shiff may have said some statements that may offend people... but at one time or another... most women did not work.

 

And lastly, i really can find any comment he made that i dis agree with... When i find an investment, be it a short or a long position, after i find something i think is attractive, i work 2x as hard disprove myself.  If i can, i don't pull the trigger.  Peter Shiff is right on.

your just being silly IMO.

Report this comment
#15) On November 02, 2008 at 12:55 PM, awallejr (78.92) wrote:

Nope. It was built on rebelling against King George of England.  "Taxation without representation" anyone?  Good first starter book George Washington's War by Robert Leckle.  And what distinguised this country was the creation of the Constitution, which  replaced the concept of a monarchy with a democracy, a democracy run by LAWS not by absolute rule.

Not going to further dignify the sexist comments.  However, I have disagreed with Schiff on other points and made them clear in other blogs.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement