Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Peter Schiff For Senate!

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

There is a group promoting

as a candidate to replace Chris Dodd as senator of Connecticut (Schiff's home state) in 2010. They have a page on Facebook, a website, and forum to coordinate the campaign. This week they posted the following appeal for volunteers:

Hello all,

Welcome to the grassroots support center to elect Peter Schiff to U.S. Senate of Connecticut. We hope you are all as excited as we are.

Honesty, we were not quite ready for our facebook page and website to be discovered. In fact, the paperwork for the committee is still being processed. However, we are ready to get moving, so continue to check our facebook page and website at www.schiff2010.com for new information, campaign tools, donation center, and more. Let us not stop the momentum!

Although the election is almost 2 years away, we must start providing the means for success now.

With your help, we can get the support to persuade Peter Schiff to run for U.S. Senante by raising the funds and providing the tools necessary to put his contention into the public eye.

We will always be open to comments, questions, concerns, and above all, help from our supporters. That being said, we are looking for participants that will be interested in blogging, managing the forum, administering our YouTube page, Twittering, developing the website (graphic design, programming, creating widgets), etc... If you have an interest and a talent that you can contribute, please let us know!

Please contact us at [email protected] if you can give this endeavor some tangible results.

We look forward to hearing from you.

In Liberty,

The Political Education and Awareness Committee

An Independent Expenditures Committee

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

In the popular CNBC etc. videos, Peter Schiff clearly bests his opponents. That is because he clearly identifies a problem, while they have blinders on. The problem is that he (and others like Jim Rogers and Marc Faber) often use hyperbole. For instance, he will point to a certain current policy and say that it will bankrupt us. An unsuspecting listener might end up thinking that bankruptcy lies at the end, missing the crucial implied point: only if the policy continues unchanged.

In this article, Schiff says that hyperinflation won't happen (it is only a "worst case scenario", which will "likely be avoided"). The question is: would a typical listener or reader glean that from his other appearances?

The second thing that Schiff talks about is the "decoupling" thesis. He doesn't try to defend it; he merely says that it is only a long term projection. However, if it is a long-term phenomena -- which is likely true -- that changes everything. It makes a huge difference if China can suddenly keep booming without bothering about exporting to the U.S.; it is quite different if this move takes place over a decade or so. In the latter case, U.S. businesses will slowly fill the void. I haven;t read Schiff's books, but in TV appearances he seems to imply that the U.S. does not produce anything. This is hyperbole.

Suppose we had 20/20 hindsight, what advice would we give? We would say something like this:

this boom is unsustainable; do not buy into the hype of a "new era"; the bust is coming

  • when the bust comes, expect a period of deflation where the only safe asset is cash
  • the bust is unsustainable; do not buy into the fear of a world changed forever; confidence will return and the government will print its way out
  • once fear is out of the system, we'll have a much larger monetary base off which to boom

We have not seen the third and fourth unravel yet; and there is a decent chance that they will not unfold that way, at least not in a hurry. In his critique, the main point that Mish is this: the way to invest is to assume a general pattern of boom and bust, and try one's best to ride it. He is criticizing the notion that the long-term trend for the U.S. economy is downward. Time will tell who is right.

The other criticism Mich makes is this: the way Schiff talks, one would think that U.S. government policies are bad (fair enough); but also that they are somehow significantly worse than the policies of Europe, China and Japan. However, as he points out, these other governments are not much different in their stupidity. Therefore, an unsuspecting listener who runs from the dollar and goes into some other currency, might find himself in a worse soup.

I like to watch Schiff -- and folks like him -- because they make points forcefully and show up others who have blinders on. However, I think one has to be careful not to buy into their hyperbole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mish's criticisms of Schiff are dead-on accurate, IMO. Heck, Schiff may be right in the long run, but if you followed his investing advice over the last year you got crushed. The thing about trading is that you not only have to be right, but right RIGHT NOW. If you think XYZ stock is going to drop to 50 from 100 and you short it on margin with no stops, if it pops to 150 before falling off the cliff you get boned. Yeah you may have been right over the long term, but there's still a smoking hole where your account used to be.

That said Schiff is still a refreshing change from the retard pump monkeys CNBS trots out, and would still be a vast improvement over our current members of government. Can't get much worse than the likes of Dodd and Bwarney Fwank.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mish's criticisms of Schiff are dead-on accurate, IMO. Heck, Schiff may be right in the long run, but if you followed his investing advice over the last year you got crushed. The thing about trading is that you not only have to be right, but right RIGHT NOW.

Not true. What about things like index funds? Rarely a short term choice but good in the long run. Shiffs investment advice is geared twards the long run. If your expecting fast results with high margins then go to Vegas.

In his response to such criticism he said:

My advice was always geared to long-term investors. Given the thousands of clients that I have, and the large number who joined near the recent dollar peak and market tops, it’s no wonder that a few have contacted this blogger to complain; especially since he has actively sought them out. Of course, the fact that the overwhelming majority of my clients are not complaining, to him or anyone else for that matter, says a lot more about what is really going on.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true. What about things like index funds? Rarely a short term choice but good in the long run. Shiffs investment advice is geared twards the long run. If your expecting fast results with high margins then go to Vegas.

Ask the folks who invested in a fund based on this index.

Nikkei 18 years and a 75% loss. would you consider that a good long term investment?

Take a look at a long term chart of the S&P; SP500 That's a classic TA reversal pattern called a Double Top Double Top caused by an excessive, unhealthy credit expansion. We'll be well under 500 on the S&P before this is all said and done.

The fact is that we're entering a secular bear market that can easily last for a couple decades. If you bought an index fund in the last 10 years you're almost certainly down double digits already, and you probably won't break even in nominal terms for another 20 years at least.

Index funds are good in a bull market, but this ain't a bull market and there probably won't be another one for a while. In a bear market you want to be concerned with capital preservation not appreciation, here's a good tool that will help keep you out of the market during bears and in during bulls. 20w/50w timing signal

The simple fact that can't be denied, is that following Schiff's advice over the last year lost you money you didn't have to lose.

Edited by eesmith4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ask the folks who invested in a fund based on this index.

Nikkei 18 years and a 75% loss. would you consider that a good long term investment?

Take a look at a long term chart of the S&P; SP500 That's a classic TA reversal pattern called a Double Top Double Top caused by an excessive, unhealthy credit expansion. We'll be well under 500 on the S&P before this is all said and done.

The fact is that we're entering a secular bear market that can easily last for a couple decades. If you bought an index fund in the last 10 years you're almost certainly down double digits already, and you probably won't break even in nominal terms for another 20 years at least.

Index funds are good in a bull market, but this ain't a bull market and there probably won't be another one for a while. In a bear market you want to be concerned with capital preservation not appreciation, here's a good tool that will help keep you out of the market during bears and in during bulls. 20w/50w timing signal

The simple fact that can't be denied, is that following Schiff's advice over the last year lost you money you didn't have to lose.

You are correct, if I invest a year ago with Peter Schiff I would have lost money. However, if you invested with almost anyone you would have lost money. If you invested with Berkshire Hathaway Inc a year ago you would have lost money as well. almost $50,000 a share . Would you say the same of Warren Buffet.

This is almost exactly what Peter Schiff says. That the market has over extended credit and inflation will eat up everything. Its funny that you would criticize his investing when almost completely agree with his strategy.

The index was my example not his. The thing about the Index is that you are looking at the price return but not the total return or net total which compound. Also, why would I want to buy indexes in a bull market when the prices are already high? Also the Index beat out 90% of mutual funds as well!!

Edited by Rearden_Steel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Here is a great video of Peter Schiff defending the gold standard against Mike Norman. Peter totally makes an ass of Norman once again on his own show (BTW this show was aired in last Dec shortly before gold’s rally). Another great prediction from a great man.

Also here is a video of Peter Schiff debating home prices in 2006. Here Mr. Schiff explains that the housing boom was caused by the Federal government through the FED and Fannie Mac and that the price of houses will fall in 2007 and 2008 because of it. Watch as Mike Norman and the other commenter’s laugh at him. To Mr. Schiff credit he never loses his composure .

Edited by Rearden_Steel
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sorry I can’t resist

where one anaylst actually bets Schiff on the air that the market won’t go into recession and says the US Economy is in great shape! Then you get to he Ben Stein shrug off Mr. Schiff and say he likes Merrille Lynch because he feels “it’s a company that’s run great” (shortly before they nearly went bankrupt and was bought out by BoA). Another guy recomended that you buy Washington Mutual in 2008!

Here is a recording ofhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msv6-EFX0Rcexplaining he does not see inflation in the future. He says witty and intelligent things such as “ I see inflation as a monetary thing”… no sh*t Mish!>

A jackass like "Mish" has no business criticizing Schiff.

Edited by Rearden_Steel
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a recording ofhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msv6-EFX0Rcexplaining he does not see inflation in the future. He says witty and intelligent things such as “ I see inflation as a monetary thing”… no sh*t Mish!>
I don't think you understood the point he was making. His statement about "seeing inflation as a monetary thing" was merely his opening, non-primary, context-setting. He was saying that to point out that he actually agrees with people like Schiff. He agrees in terms of the abstract principle of inflation: i.e. the principle that creation on nominal (as opposed to real) buying power will raise prices.

What he says after that is his real argument, where he delineates his differences with Schiff. [in essence, his differences come when one asks: "what do we mean by nominal buying power?" and "what do we mean by prices?"] He is making an extremely important argument, explaining why it is dangerous to think about inflation in a rationalistic way. Instead of stopping at the abstract theory or interpreting it in the traditional way [money-supply and CPI], Shedlock looks much closer at reality and tries to see how it really applies.

Now, Shedlock might be wrong; but, to call him a jackass is extremely unfair.

If I had to bet between those two, my money would be on Shedlock. I intend to do a more detailed blog-0post explaining this so-called "deflationist" viewpoint (which is actually a misnomer). Will link here when it is done.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites

Later in the audio clip, Mish makes the argument that if you print a trillion dollars and bury it in your back yard, it has no effect on the economy. That may be true in the present, but if the dollar begins to lose value, won't you start digging up those buried dollars to use them? He claims that if the Fed prints a trillion dollars, and all of those dollars just sit on bank balance sheets, it is equivalent to burying them or burning them. The latter is obviously not true, because if you burn them they're gone forever, whereas if you bury them, you can still use them later. Also, if I put money in the bank, it doesn't just sit there - so, if the bank balance sheets have more money on them, doesn't that mean more money that can be lent out to companies for growth?

I do agree that it is good to look at real examples when possible, however unless you actually explain why those examples are relevant, and not simply due to some unknown factor that has no application to the current situation, why should those examples be taken seriously?

Edited by brian0918
Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian, Mish has written extensively about this on his blog. So, I'll just indicate his views very briefly.

Later in the audio clip, Mish makes the argument that if you print a trillion dollars and bury it in your back yard, it has no effect on the economy. That may be true in the present, but if the dollar begins to lose value, won't you start digging up those buried dollars to use them?
Sure you could, and you probably would. I don't think he would disagree. Did he mention burning them? If he did, I don't think he meant they could not "unburned". In fact, he'd probably point out that one can print new ones anyway. His whole point is not about how the world will look 10 or 20 years from now. If I were to extend his analogy I'd put it this way: instead of panicking now, watch for the time when the guy go back to the backyard and starts digging up the notes. One really needs to read the details he provides to understand that he is not saying inflation is not coming. In fact, he would agree with Schiff on certain specifics now. As an example, like Schiff, he would claim that gold is a decent place to put some money; but, he would disagree about other (e.g. in particular, about other commodities)

Also, if I put money in the bank, it doesn't just sit there - so, if the bank balance sheets have more money on them, doesn't that mean more money that can be lent out to companies for growth?
It can but it does not have to be. Given my income, I can take a certain size of loan. If my income increases I might take out a larger loan. However, if times change and I'm being cautious, give me a raise and you might find I'm using it to pay off a loan rather than taking out a new one. Lenders too change behavior when they're scared about an uncertain future. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you understood the point he was making. His statement about "seeing inflation as a monetary thing" was merely his opening, non-primary, context-setting. He was saying that to point out that he actually agrees with people like Schiff. He agrees in terms of the abstract principle of inflation: i.e. the principle that creation on nominal (as opposed to real) buying power will raise prices.

I understand perfectly what he is saying. I’m just pointing out the absurdity of his opening statement. It would be like Obama getting up and saying “I view government as a political thing”.

He is making an extremely important argument, explaining why it is dangerous to think about inflation in a rationalistic way. Instead of stopping at the abstract theory or interpreting it in the traditional way [money-supply and CPI], Shedlock looks much closer at reality and tries to see how it really applies.

He misses the fact that the government will pump money directly into the economy to re-inflate, avoiding the banks, that the national debt grows massively and nobody wants to buy that debt. Banks will lend once the economy is re-inflated and brought back from it's coma or deflation. We are already the greatest debtor nation and it will grow proportionally. Without the ability to produce real goods and wealth such as China and most can, the dollar eventually falls faster than all others.

To qoute Peter Schiff "he is confusing short-term market fluctuations with long-term economic trends."

Now, Shedlock might be wrong; but, to call him a jackass is extremely unfair.

I disagree. He is weasely opportunist who promotes himself by trying to discreadit Schiff. The jist of it is that Mish picked a specific time frame when he knew Schiff’s clients would not have made money, and used this short time frame of roughly 9 months to “prove him wrong”. To qoute Mr Schiff:

"In particular, his posting on Market Oracle is primarily an attempt to attract business to his own firm (Sitka Capital Management), by bashing a much larger and better known firm. However, the strategies employed by the two firms are completely different and make a direct comparison useless.

Also, as a broker dealer (not a Registered Investment Advisor as Mr. Shedlock’s firm), it would be illegal for us to publish or to otherwise make claims as to past or expected investment performance. Mr. Shedlock knows this, but sees a chance to gain credibility as a result of our lack of response to his challenge."

Edited by Rearden_Steel
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't vouch for Shedlock's character. His bad-mouthing of Schiff was not called for, unless there is some history behind it, of which I'm unaware.

Nor do I have any knowledge of Shedlock's politics. I've heard Schiff supports Ron Paul. For all I know, Shedlock supports some type of government-intervention politics. I doubt it, but I haven't read him enough to know his politics one way or the other.

However he makes a cogent economic argument. Portraying it as "confusing" the short term and the long-term is a wrong characterization of what Shedlock says. One might describe his essays as saying he is talking about the short term while Schiff is talking about the long-term, but I don't see Shedlock confusing the two. He agrees that nominal buying power will start to inflate again "at some point".

Shedlock agrees with the Quantity Theory of Money in its abstract form. However, he does raise some important questions about the concretes to which it applies, as well as the mechanism by which it applies. Perhaps Shedlock has himself to blame, because his focus on Schiff and his returns etc. takes the focus away from the economic point he is making. However, that does not detract from the value of those questions to anyone who wishes to understand economics.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

I am from Fairfield County, CT, and can offer a couple of aspects regarding Peter Schiff that others here probably cannot. There is speculation regarding Schiff's social policies; the answer is no, he does not share all of Ron Paul's social positions. He's much more in line with Objectivist morals than with right-wing republicanism, though I should draw the distinction that Ron Paul has never truly wished to impose his morals on the country by making use of his power.

Schiff is not religious, and most likely an atheist. I cannot speak definitively about his stance on abortion, but I would make the guess that he's pro-choice if I had to choose one or the other.

The other major aspect brought up is Schiff's demeanor and word choice when speaking publicly. Though Schiff may not be selective in his terminologies and may imply worst-case scenarios on television interviews more often than not, this doesn't have any real impact on the power of Schiff's economic mind. The fact is that he would have never been nearly as correct about everything if he wasn't incredibly able in this field. Schiff has a very sophisticated and sound understanding of the economy, and of the importance of laissez-faire economics, and his new book explains in great detail his views on decoupling. The fact is that no television program would ever give him enough time to explain most of his insightful viewpoints, especially in the realm of decoupling. It's perhaps his most unpopular position among the mainstream media, after all. I would suggest that anyone who questions it read his new book, and not take his television appearances as the ultimate representation of Schiff's economic, moral, and political character.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Schiff is scheduled to be on the daily show on June 9th! Rumor has it that he may announce his candidacy for senate on the show. I've been waiting to see him on the daily show ever since Jon Steward ripped Jim Crammer a new one and said something to the effect that no one foresaw the end of the housing boom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Schiff is scheduled to be on the daily show on June 9th! Rumor has it that he may announce his candidacy for senate on the show. I've been waiting to see him on the daily show ever since Jon Steward ripped Jim Crammer a new one and said something to the effect that no one foresaw the end of the housing boom.

You better believe I'll be watching! It will be the first time I've patronized that program in over a few years now. I heard about that interview with Jim Crammer, but I just cannot for the life of me begin to believe that Jon Stewart had anything even remotely knowledgeable to say.

Jon Stewart is a moron.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...