Ron Paul is a multi millionaire... but you argue like a 10yo would once again... What could they have done to be the richest men in america based on what they have been predicted?

Oh I don't know.. make investments? Since they seem to be right about everything they should be able to make a killing, no?

You dont think Peter is making a killing right now? He is on CNN or Fox every other day promoting his book and his Euro Pac company.

"All kinds of dirt"? No, I just pointed out that Paul's prediction of an imminent recession in '83 was - like you said - "dead wrong". It was far off the mark.

Paul is a perma-bear. For my entire life he has done nothing but predict doom and gloom. A broken clock is right twice a day.

My point is if these dudes are such infallible economic geniuses they should be pulling down bill gates money. Not whoring out shitty books money.

investment in what? gold? commodities? agriculture? This is what he is doing... but this year is not when theyll make their money... Master investor Jim Rogers is doing the exact same thing, one of the richest man in america btw... so again, what are you getting at?

EXACTLY

The nature of the business cycle means these chicken littles will be right once in awhile. It's like a weatherman who predicts torrential rain every day.

At some point people get wet and he and his followers bring out the I told you so routine....but they were bound to be right eventually.

To quote you, you said he said "in a few years" ...

Interesting article here:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...980s-recession

"
On Black Monday of October 1987 a stock collapse of unprecedented size lopped twenty-five percent off the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The collapse, larger than that of 1929, was handled well by the economy and the stock market began to quickly recover. However the lumbering savings and loans were beginning to collapse, putting the savings of millions of Americans in jeopardy.


The panic that followed lead to a sharp recession that hit hardest those countries most closely linked to the United States, including Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. The economies of Europe and Japan were hurt, but not as badly. The US economy continued to grow as a whole, although certain sectors of the market such as energy and real estate slumped.


The first burst of the recession was short-lived, as fervent activity by the government leading up to elections in both the United States and Canada created what many economists at the time saw as an economic miracle a growing consumer confidence and increased consumer spending almost single handedly lifted the North American economy out of recession.


It soon turned out that the quick recovery was illusory, and by 1989 economic malaise had returned. For the next several years high unemployment, massive government deficits, and slow GDP growth affected the United States until 1992 and Canada until 1995. "





Its official, Ron Paul is a fraud, he couldnt give out an exact date and is wrong on a few details... All other great economists are always spot on! Lets praise them and give out a few names can we? lol

I've seen his warnings & profhecies (afterwards) but I did not hear his current solutions yet....
This would be a good time to hear them from Peter...

One of the thins that companies have lost in general is the ability to turn a TRUE profit. They can no longer run without the help of banks and thats just silly.

:Oh crap Fitty warnings :Oh crap

Do you know any of the specifics because all I hear from you is generalisations and assumptions written with this no-nonsense/Im cutting thru the bullshit tone...

How come ron paul and peter schiff aren't one of the richest as well? Based on their predictions and economic prowess They should be billionaires too, no?

Yeah, pretty much. Throw enough bullshit at a walll and eventually some of it will stick, And when it does silly assholes will hold you up as a savior it seems.

well fuck me! Ill invest in the Jim Rogers index and become a BILLIONAIRE just like him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I see you've except Jesus "Ron Paul" Christ into your heart as your personal lord and savior. Peace be with you brother.

So Ron Paul's prediction in 1983 that a recession was coming was really the one that started July 1990? http://www.nber.org/cycles/

Oh, come on. There were 20 recessions in the 20th century. One every 5 years. It was 7 years from Paul's prediction until the next recession. Just at random you would do better than that. Paul was wrong in '83.

Unemployment in 1989 was never higher than 5.4%. It is quite obvious that the recession started in July of '90 when unemployment started trending upward. not in 1987. Not in 1989.

Let's not forget the 1990 recession was one of the shortest and weakest on record; lasting only 8 months. As far as 1987 the US of course never went recessionary. In fact unemployment fell pretty much in a straight line from 1983 to 1990 and it is clear as to why the NBER choose July 90 for the start of the short, weak recession of 1990

Unemployment rates:

1983-01-01 10.4
1983-02-01 10.4
1983-03-01 10.3
1983-04-01 10.2
1983-05-01 10.1
1983-06-01 10.1
1983-07-01 9.4
1983-08-01 9.5
1983-09-01 9.2
1983-10-01 8.8
1983-11-01 8.5
1983-12-01 8.3
1984-01-01 8.0
1984-02-01 7.8
1984-03-01 7.8
1984-04-01 7.7
1984-05-01 7.4
1984-06-01 7.2
1984-07-01 7.5
1984-08-01 7.5
1984-09-01 7.3
1984-10-01 7.4
1984-11-01 7.2
1984-12-01 7.3
1985-01-01 7.3
1985-02-01 7.2
1985-03-01 7.2
1985-04-01 7.3
1985-05-01 7.2
1985-06-01 7.4
1985-07-01 7.4
1985-08-01 7.1
1985-09-01 7.1
1985-10-01 7.1
1985-11-01 7.0
1985-12-01 7.0
1986-01-01 6.7
1986-02-01 7.2
1986-03-01 7.2
1986-04-01 7.1
1986-05-01 7.2
1986-06-01 7.2
1986-07-01 7.0
1986-08-01 6.9
1986-09-01 7.0
1986-10-01 7.0
1986-11-01 6.9
1986-12-01 6.6
1987-01-01 6.6
1987-02-01 6.6
1987-03-01 6.6
1987-04-01 6.3
1987-05-01 6.3
1987-06-01 6.2
1987-07-01 6.1
1987-08-01 6.0
1987-09-01 5.9
1987-10-01 6.0
1987-11-01 5.8
1987-12-01 5.7
1988-01-01 5.7
1988-02-01 5.7
1988-03-01 5.7
1988-04-01 5.4
1988-05-01 5.6
1988-06-01 5.4
1988-07-01 5.4
1988-08-01 5.6
1988-09-01 5.4
1988-10-01 5.4
1988-11-01 5.3
1988-12-01 5.3
1989-01-01 5.4
1989-02-01 5.2
1989-03-01 5.0
1989-04-01 5.2
1989-05-01 5.2
1989-06-01 5.3
1989-07-01 5.2
1989-08-01 5.2
1989-09-01 5.3
1989-10-01 5.3
1989-11-01 5.4
1989-12-01 5.4
1990-01-01 5.4
1990-02-01 5.3
1990-03-01 5.2

Peter Schiff, Ron Paul and the likes are just small time players who aren't gaming the system. The Berney Madoff's of the world are. Unfortunately we have A LOT of Berney Madoffs (who is just a fall guy btw) gaming the system. All of this financial collapse and bailout shit is just these guys trying to keep their ill-gotten riches. Paul and Schiff can't just come out and say this stuff on TV because they get stuff like this



So they give it to you i small increments where they can.

how dishonest can you be? how many recessions in the last 25 years?

And it started in July 1990 out of nowhere? It all started in 1987..

did you miss the part in the article I posted where it says: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...980s-recession


"The first burst of the recession was short-lived, as fervent activity by the government leading up to elections in both the United States and Canada created what many economists at the time saw as an economic miracle a growing consumer confidence and increased consumer spending almost single handedly lifted the North American economy out of recession."

"It soon turned out that the quick recovery was illusory, and by 1989 economic malaise had returned."

What is this PHANTOM 1987 recession?

Unemployment was shrinking in 87 and GDP was growing. That is WHY the NBER didn't list a recession in 87. There was NO recession in 87 and nothing started in 87. Unemployment dropped all throughout 1987 ending at a very low 5.7% in december of 87. Unemployment continued to fall in 88 ending the year at 5.4%

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1987/09/art6exc.htm

Strong employment growth highlights first half of 1987

Wayne J. Howe

Employment rose markedly during the first half of 1987. The number of unemployed workers dropped by 700,000 to 7.4 million, and the civilian unemployment rate fell more than half a point to 6.2 percent. This brought the rate to its lowest level since the first quarter of 1980.

The employment gains in the first half continued to be concentrated in the service-producing sector. In the goods-producing sector, there was an overall increase in construction and manufacturing jobs, and employment in mining began to show a recovery from recent job losses.

Here are the GDP numbers:

1983-01-01 3382.9
1983-04-01 3484.1
1983-07-01 3589.3
1983-10-01 3690.4
1984-01-01 3809.6
1984-04-01 3908.6
1984-07-01 3978.2
1984-10-01 4036.3
1985-01-01 4119.5
1985-04-01 4178.4
1985-07-01 4261.3
1985-10-01 4321.8
1986-01-01 4385.6
1986-04-01 4425.7
1986-07-01 4493.9
1986-10-01 4546.1
1987-01-01 4613.8
1987-04-01 4690.0
1987-07-01 4767.8
1987-10-01 4886.3
1988-01-01 4954.1
1988-04-01 5062.8
1988-07-01 5146.6
1988-10-01 5253.7
1989-01-01 5367.1
1989-04-01 5454.1
1989-07-01 5531.9
1989-10-01 5584.3

How did GDP do in 1987? From 1/1/87 to 1/1/88 GDP grew 7.3%! That is very strong growth! And in 88? 8.4%!

Do the math yourself! (4954.1/4613.8) = 1.073 = 7.3% growth!

'87 and 89 were years of very strong growth and falling unemployment!

----

As far as over what period to determine an average length between recessions 25 years is way too short for a number that averages less than 10. I prefer to look over a century. Even over the past 25 years you have the 91, 01 and current recession. That's 3 in 25 years = 8 years which doesn't make him any more accurate (91-83 = 8!)

You talk like certain economists talked in 2007 and early 2008 who were looking at the numbers and claimed the US economy was strong and those who talked about a recession were wrong... GDP numbers dont tell the entire story about the state of an economy... Read the quotes I highlighted... Read over the word "illusory" a few more times... and this one, "what many economists at the time saw as an economic miracle"


Are you blaming Ron Paul for not forseeing a miracle?!!

but the 2001 recession was caused by 9/11... no economists could have taken credit for that prediction... so more like 2 recessions economists could have take credit for over 25 years... Hardly something easy to do...

You're still stuck on that?

Just because you don't understand the proper role of short and long term debt in the overall economy doesn't mean that it's not important or shouldn't exist.

What you're saying is the equivalent of saying if people can't pay cash for their house or car, they shouldn't have a house or a car.

You're under this illusion that companies needing credit to survive is a new thing and that everything used to be cash and carry.
IT'S NEVER BEEN THAT WAY. Debt and credit go all the way back to the dawn of civilization for crying out loud.
Just because your grandfather told you that if you couldn't pay cash you shouldn't buy it doesn't mean that's the way business has always operated.

err. Yeah, the money changers. And every time the money changers controlled societies they destroyed them. Todays money = slavery

Nope. The 2001 recession started in March, 2001. That's before 9/11/2001. By September 11th it was almost over. It ended in November.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/163844/Peter-Schiff%27s-Clients-Got-Hosed-This-Year-Too?tickers=^gspc,^dji

vid removed....

Everybody is getting hosed and going to get hosed even more. There are no safe havens and no exit strategies outside of physical assets. The entire game is manipulated. When you get up to go to the bathroom in this game of monopoly the other player is digging in the bank. Unless you're one of the manipulators I'd suggest not playing the game for awhile. Even if you go into gold, grain or whatever these big brokerages and the "working group" can just crash the price of any of them in a matter of days or weeks much like they did oil. It's not the free market it's a manipulated one

Just one example

U.S. Government Sanctioned Gold Price Manipulation?
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article8014.html

I agree, thinking most people who predict economy issues are going to have a few things wrong. Human error. I saw the article and thought it was interesting no one else noticed.

schiff is right, and the dollar is going to cliff dive ala UK Pound style. the sudden blast up in the dollar is based on large ibanks in bed with the fed/treasury targeting hedgefunds that were driving up oil and all commodities just when bernanke needed to cut rates and the gov to throw gobs of trillions of fiscal stimulus. one example of political targetting was the ban on short selling of financials. hedgefunds, as a strategy, hedge! so when they were all short the equities and long the respective company bonds, well BOOM go a few hedgies who had a bit too much leverage. along with their short dollar long commodities positions as margin calls permeated throughout the entire investing world.

as fundamentals come back into focus, oil will be at $100 in short order. gold will be 1500-2k and unemployment will tick up to 12% in '09 and head for 20% (yes, 1 in 5 unemployeed!) by end of 2010.

You're right. We should look at a lot more than just GDP. 1987 not only brought strong GDP growth but strong corporate profits and strong improving employment numbers. Corporate profits in 1987 were up 15% over 1986 with each quarter stronger than the one before. Not just in the US either. Corporate profits were up 21% worldwide in 1987 over 1986.

It is only true that the 1988 economy was slightly stronger than expected but certainly not a "miracle". Many economists thought that the '87 stock market crash would shave about 1% off GDP. Nowhere near a recession and of course as we now know it never materialized anyway.

Here's an article from "The Economic Review" published at the end of '87. http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/ECONR...7/4q87cacy.pdf

"The US Economy continued to grow in 1987 as the current business cycle expansion extended into its fifth year, making it the longest peacetime economic upturn in U.S. history". Paul missed widely on that one.

Although the paper expected sluggish growth in the first half of 1988 overall they predicted continued growth. They wrote "a balanced assessment of the economic prospects for 1988 indicated continued expansion is likely".

Economic forecasting is a fool's game.

Only that as long as ago as 2005 I was pointing out the problems in real estate on this very board. http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=470170

"This is not just a US bubble, it is a world-wide bubble and not just in real-estate prices but nearly all assets. What always happens in the manias is that people claim the fundamentals have changed and support the rise. In 2000, increases in productivity would push the Dow Jones to 36,000. Now people think there are fundamental reasons why people in Boston and Miami should be getting rich by buying property in one year and selling in the next. Bulls are a great ride for people who don't get on at the top. Those who do get bucked"

http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Humor/Cats/Retard.jpg

smells fight! hahaha

Nah, just a friendly conversation. and a fun one at that. ;-)

keeping up with roubini?

Article in WSJ today.

Right Forecast by Schiff, Wrong Plan?

"Mr. Schiff's Darien, Conn., broker-dealer firm, Euro Pacific Capital Inc., advised its clients to bet that the dollar would weaken significantly and that foreign stocks would outpace their U.S. peers. Instead, the dollar advanced against most currencies, magnifying the losses from foreign stocks Mr. Schiff steered his investors into"

At least some unhappy clients.
"A number of investors said their Euro Pacific portfolios lost 50% or more in 2008, worse than the 38% drop in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index last year. People familiar with the firm say that hardly any securities recommended by Euro Pacific brokers gained ground in 2008."

To be fair looks like there were better results in prior years.
"When global markets were soaring, many Euro Pacific investors' accounts experienced strong performance. For several years, investors saw returns in excess of 20% a year as foreign stocks and commodities surged, according to people familiar with the firm."

What have you done for me lately? ;-)

Here's the decoupling bit which was a real miss.
"One of Mr. Schiff's biggest forecasts was that many overseas economies would "decouple" from the U.S., gaining strength even as the American economy struggled. Instead, overseas stock markets plunged as much or more than U.S. stocks in 2008 as the global economy skidded. Prices for commodities also tanked, torpedoing another favorite investment theme of Mr. Schiff's. After last year's losses, his firm has about $845 million in assets."

I don't believe his record is public but here's someone who came forward.
"Early last year, Richard De Gennaro, a retired Harvard University librarian, put $100,000, about 15% of his assets, into a Euro Pacific account that included Canadian Oil Sands Trust, which focuses on crude-oil projects in Canada, and the India Capital Growth Fund, which holds investments in companies that do business in India. Both investments took big hits in 2008, compounded by the fact that the Canadian dollar and the Indian rupee fell 18% and 19%, respectively, against the U.S. dollar. The 83-year-old retiree's account is now worth about $37,000, a 63% plunge. Mr. Schiff "goes around saying that he was right," says Mr. De Gennaro. "He was right about one thing and wrong about everything else."

And another
"Among investors who turned to Mr. Schiff's firm just as his strategy began to falter, Brian Kullberg, a design engineer in Portland, Ore., says he started to worry about the state of the U.S. economy in early 2008. He put $70,000 into a Euro Pacific account, hoping it would benefit as the U.S. economy and the dollar weakened. By late January 2009, his investment had shrunk to about $25,000."

Don't get me wrong. My view of Schiff isn't [b]all[/b[ negative. I'm just saying he gets some things right some wrong - but I don't think he is in any way deserving of the praise some are laying on him. Being right about an investment thesis can still get you killed if you have the timing wrong. Schiff predicted in 2002 that the Dow Jones would go "to 2000 to 4000 or maybe less". The next 6 years saw the Dow Jones rise 40%! Then in his book last year he predicted decoupling. if you bet on it you probably lose even more than you did in the Dow. We don't know all his client's results but we can see he is speculating based on his macro views and when the timing is wrong is losing his clients more money than they would have otherwise.

But who has put their money where their mouth is? How many of you have invested with Schiff? Or how many would/will? His company, Euro Pacific Capital doesn't have a required minimum investment other than minimum lot sizes in any purchased foreign equities which is going to be minimal. If you've invested with him how are you doing? If not, why not?

the video is gone :( I wanted to watch