dmarc117 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/artic...SPY,DIA,TLT,UDN The fiscal stimulus bill being debated in Congress not only won't help the economy, it will make the recession much worse, says Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital. Schiff scoffs at the notion the economic decline is starting to level off and concedes no government action means a "terrible" recession. But the path of increased government intervention will lead to "unmitigated disaster," says Schiff, who gained notoriety in 2007-08 for his prescient calls on the housing bubble and U.S. stocks. The problem, he says, is the government is trying to perpetuate a "phony economy" based on borrowing and spending. With the U.S. consumer tapped out, the government is "now taking on the mantle" of consumer of last resort, he continues, predicting the bond bubble will soon burst - if it hasn't already - ultimately leading to a collapse of the dollar and an "inflationary depression worse than anything any of us have ever seen." we can not continue to prop this up!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 says Schiff, who gained notoriety in 2007-08 for his prescient calls on the housing bubble and U.S. stocks. If he was so prescient, how come his investors got hammered? http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com...-was-wrong.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 oh snap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 If he was so prescient, how come his investors got hammered? Because he's yet another puffed up egomaniacal paper shuffler with no clue what he's doing? Just a guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 oh snap. Say what you want, wiegie is the economic equivalent of Chuck Norris nowadays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 What did Monica say to president Clinton? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 What did Monica say to president Clinton? ...but the cigar is bigger! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 How about this 'source'? President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/f...over-long-haul/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 This guy gets it: "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe." -- President Obama, Feb. 4. Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill. And so much for the promise to banish the money changers and influence peddlers from the temple. An ostentatious executive order banning lobbyists was immediately followed by the nomination of at least a dozen current or former lobbyists to high position. ... Not just to abolish but to create something new -- a new politics where the moneyed pork-barreling and corrupt logrolling of the past would give way to a bottom-up, grass-roots participatory democracy. That is what made Obama so dazzling and new. Turns out the "fierce urgency of now" includes $150 million for livestock (and honeybee and farm-raised fish) insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 How about this 'source'? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/f...over-long-haul/ This guy gets it: The funny(OK, not really funny) thing is, even if every voter in the country calls/writes their respective representatives, they'll still pass the bill - just like they did in Oct. I hope someone pitches this CBO projections to Obama and those in favor of the bill. There's simply got to be a better way to help the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 If he was so prescient, how come his investors got hammered? http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com...-was-wrong.html Schiff does not deny some clients of his broker/dealer firm (he's not a fund manager or registered investment adviser) suffered big losses last year; they were hurt as the dollar experienced what Schiff calls a "phony" rally that hit commodities and subjected many foreign holdings to a "double whammy." But in typically direct fashion (and less emotional than his initial response), the author and strategist address the critics head on in the accompanying video, making the following points: * It's unfair to tarnish him for one bad year after seven-plus years where his strategy had great success. * The "game" is only over if the clock stops on 12/31/08 and clients are forced to sell positions for a loss, which isn't the case. In fact, he says clients are taking advantage of the dollar's temporary strength to continue their "exit strategy" from dollar-based assets and into foreign currencies and stocks at depressed levels. * He's not a market timer and is positioning clients for a "major collapse" of the dollar - which he very much still believes will occur, as detailed in part 1 of our interview. I admire Schiff for sticking to his convictions now and in years past, when he was laughed at by other pundits (literally, in some cases). Some, like Ben Stein, have since apologized but others are surely taking glee in this tarnishing of his reputation. But a more important issue is he does appear to "make no allowances for being wrong and [has] no exit strategy whatsoever," as Shedlock claims. It was edited out of the video, but Schiff essentially said "there's no chance I'm wrong" when I asked what the risk is to his scenario of a collapsing dollar, which entered Friday at a four-week high vs. the yen and has been rallying vs. the euro even as (or because) the ECB held steady on rates at its policy meeting this week. With the bailout tally rising and Treasury potentially borrowing $3-$4 trillion in the next 18 months alone, it's hard to argue with Schiff's dire view of the dollar's fundamentals. But hubris is the deadliest sin and the biggest risk Schiff faces is the market staying irrational longer than he (and clients) can stay solvent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 (edited) The funny(OK, not really funny) thing is, even if every voter in the country calls/writes their respective representatives, they'll still pass the bill - just like they did in Oct. I hope someone pitches this CBO projections to Obama and those in favor of the bill. There's simply got to be a better way to help the economy. I agree but Obama met with leaders from both sides and asked for ideas. Even if this isn't the best we need something quickly. Republican leaders proposed all tax cuts. That has a history of not working quickly. WASHINGTON - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and other top officials are putting the finishing touches on a plan to overhaul the government's $700 billion financial rescue program. A Treasury official says Geithner will deliver a speech on Monday outlining the new plan. Geithner met Thursday with the top officials who will play a role in implementing the effort, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and the heads of the federal government's major bank regulatory agencies. Edited February 6, 2009 by Randall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Any plan that adds a single government job is a bad plan, as it only puts more pressure on the private sector. They need to get rid of mark-to-market, and that will free up the banks to start lending again. They need to cut taxes on businesses and cut capital gains to encourage investment and jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 I agree but Obama met with leaders from both sides and asked for ideas. Even if this isn't the best we need something quickly. Republican leaders proposed all tax cuts. That has a history of not working quickly. WASHINGTON - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and other top officials are putting the finishing touches on a plan to overhaul the government's $700 billion financial rescue program. A Treasury official says Geithner will deliver a speech on Monday outlining the new plan. Geithner met Thursday with the top officials who will play a role in implementing the effort, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and the heads of the federal government's major bank regulatory agencies. geithner will be discussing the bank bail out plan. this is different from the stimulus plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 They need to cut taxes on businesses and cut capital gains to encourage investment and jobs. Are there ever any circumstances where anything other than tax cuts are the solution? Economy's up, tax cuts. Economy's down, tax cuts Economy not doing much of anything, tax cuts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I suggest french fries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Are there ever any circumstances where anything other than tax cuts are the solution? Economy's up, tax cuts. Economy's down, tax cuts Economy not doing much of anything, tax cuts Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Are there ever any circumstances where anything other than tax cuts are the solution? Economy's up, tax cuts. Economy's down, tax cuts Economy not doing much of anything, tax cuts The tax rate is still to high, and capital gains and business taxes reduce investment and reinvestment in businesses which reduce job creation and in poor economic times job retention. In addition to tax cuts in poor economic times we should cut discretionary spending instead of adding to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Are there ever any circumstances where anything other than tax cuts are the solution? Economy's up, tax cuts. Economy's down, tax cuts Economy not doing much of anything, tax cuts Creating massive government debt is somehow a better solution? Maybe you don't see this, but if I were a wealthy person and was regularly getting hammered on taxes at a significantly higher rate than the average American, and then I saw the government throw itself into a tailspin of debt that I would likely be called on to carry another proportionately larger chunk on when the debt came due, I would probably be looking at ways to conserve money. I would (and by the way do, regardless of that I am not that guy) see this as an anti-stimulus package. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 The tax rate is still to high, and capital gains and business taxes reduce investment and reinvestment in businesses which reduce job creation and in poor economic times job retention. In addition to tax cuts in poor economic times we should cut discretionary spending instead of adding to it. Here in Minnesota we had a surplus a few years back so everyone got a $300 - $600 check back because the cry from the right was that taxes were too high, we want our money back, blah blah. Some of us thought this was insanely shortsighted and sure enough, here we are with a biennial deficit projection of over $4 billion. If that money had been stashed away, we'd have a manageable deficit right now. Where are the same people who were wailing earlier now? Oh, there they are, wanting yet more tax cuts but basing their argument on the exact opposite logic to before. Creating massive government debt is somehow a better solution? Maybe you don't see this, but if I were a wealthy person and was regularly getting hammered on taxes at a significantly higher rate than the average American, and then I saw the government throw itself into a tailspin of debt that I would likely be called on to carry another proportionately larger chunk on when the debt came due, I would probably be looking at ways to conserve money. I would (and by the way do, regardless of that I am not that guy) see this as an anti-stimulus package. Maybe you don't see this but that wealthy person has to earn it to pay it. There is not one person anywhere who would balk at a trade of salaries with a person earning more despite tax being a higher cut at the higher rate (and only at the higher rate). There is a likelihood that the top rate of tax will be raised to 39.6% from it's current 35%. That would match exactly the top rate in the '90s. You remember the '90s, Nick? Boom years, IIRC, with pretty much everyone doing fairly well or better. This tax rate thing is a total red herring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Creating massive government debt is somehow a better solution? Maybe you don't see this, but if I were a wealthy person and was regularly getting hammered on taxes at a significantly higher rate than the average American, and then I saw the government throw itself into a tailspin of debt that I would likely be called on to carry another proportionately larger chunk on when the debt came due, I would probably be looking at ways to conserve money. I would (and by the way do, regardless of that I am not that guy) see this as an anti-stimulus package. Define wealthy. How did he get said wealth? Did much of said wealth survive the current problem? Is he still employed/does the company he owns still do business? If so, did they have to make layoffs to meet projected budgets? That's just the tip of the # of details missing in many of these hypotheticals. For me, the problem right now is that in the future, this 'compromise' is going to do nothing but provide cover for both sides that their ideas got watered down, and they need more money, but this time to do it right. It literally is like watching a slo mo train wreck, knowing which piece is going to buckle next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Here in Minnesota we had a surplus a few years back so everyone got a $300 - $600 check back because the cry from the right was that taxes were too high, we want our money back, blah blah. Some of us thought this was insanely shortsighted and sure enough, here we are with a biennial deficit projection of over $4 billion. If that money had been stashed away, we'd have a manageable deficit right now. Where are the same people who were wailing earlier now? Oh, there they are, wanting yet more tax cuts but basing their argument on the exact opposite logic to before. The problem is that for political expediency everyone got $300-$600 back. While I don't know this, I'd almost be willing to bet those that paid the least received the most. The problem with those cuts or rebates is it is going to the wrong people. Cut business taxes and capital gains taxes. This will stimulate growth and jobs. While giving rebate checks to those that don't pay or barely pay taxes might have some small effect, decreasing business taxes and capital gains would have a much greater impact on our economy. Unfortunately that isn't politically expedient, and now that almost 40% of voters really don't pay taxes, it never will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Here in Minnesota we had a surplus a few years back so everyone got a $300 - $600 check back because the cry from the right was that taxes were too high, we want our money back, blah blah. Some of us thought this was insanely shortsighted and sure enough, here we are with a biennial deficit projection of over $4 billion. If that money had been stashed away, we'd have a manageable deficit right now. Where are the same people who were wailing earlier now? Oh, there they are, wanting yet more tax cuts but basing their argument on the exact opposite logic to before. It's not the government's job to confiscate the people's money and hoard it. Their job is to do a good job managing the taxes they collect in order to offer the services that are required of and that can only be provided by government. Maybe you don't see this but that wealthy person has to earn it to pay it. There is not one person anywhere who would balk at a trade of salaries with a person earning more despite tax being a higher cut at the higher rate (and only at the higher rate). Gawd that is the dumbest frickin argument. Every time I hear it I want to tear my hair out. This isn't fantasy land where people can just "trade places". It's a (mostly) free market economy in which people are supposed to be rewarded for their success and for adding to the economy at large. There is a likelihood that the top rate of tax will be raised to 39.6% from it's current 35%. That would match exactly the top rate in the '90s. You remember the '90s, Nick? Boom years, IIRC, with pretty much everyone doing fairly well or better. This tax rate thing is a total red herring. False confidence created by false monetary gain, and a large part of what has gotten us to this point. Numbers "going up" on a computer system that could be compared to a stock market video game and that later went bust is no basis for economic growth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 The problem is that for political expediency everyone got $300-$600 back. While I don't know this, I'd almost be willing to bet those that paid the least received the most. The problem with those cuts or rebates is it is going to the wrong people. Cut business taxes and capital gains taxes. This will stimulate growth and jobs. While giving rebate checks to those that don't pay or barely pay taxes might have some small effect, decreasing business taxes and capital gains would have a much greater impact on our economy. Unfortunately that isn't politically expedient, and now that almost 40% of voters really don't pay taxes, it never will be. IIRC, the rebates went to taxpayers only but I might be wrong. Sure it was political expediency but it was driven by the anti-tax brigade and was also short-sighted. Myopia is one of the biggest issues we as a nation and capitalism itself needs to solve. We cannot continue to look at this week, the next quarter, the next year. We (individuals, companies, the nation, all capitalist countries) need to have a five or ten year outlook (and I am well aware that the communists used to do this but in a doomed-to-fail centralized economy so please don't label me a red). Only some individuals seem to have any kind of long range view right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 False confidence created by false monetary gain, and a large part of what has gotten us to this point. Numbers "going up" on a computer system that could be compared to a stock market video game and that later went bust is no basis for economic growth. So what is "basis for economic growth"? Companies shipping good manufacturing and other jobs abroad to boost this quarter's balance sheet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.