When someone is consistently right vs. When someone is consistently wrong

When someone is consistently right in their predictions regarding the economy, I would hope that people would take that into consideration. There are people who have been consistently wrong (Greenspan, Bernanke, Paulson, most politicians, most media members, etc.), and then there are a few people who have been consistently right about the events that have transpired economically within the last few years. Peter Schiff is one of those people who has been incredibly accurate with his predictions. Check out this video.

Maybe its time to start learning HOW Peter knows this, and trying to decide whether it is all pure luck or if he is on to something.

See, this is the kind of thing that anybody who has any interest in the current economic situation should see. Bottom line.

Thank you for the video. It wouldn't appear the other day when I opened this thread, but it did tonight.

Peter Schiff defies gravity. He seems to understand how it works.

If you were to hit a balloon into the air while walking up a set of stairs, the balloon would rise not only from the "hit," but also by the "ascent." The balloon is really not rising from the ascent as it is merely being lofted by the hit the same amount, only from a higher altitude. However, if the hit is missed, gravity will make it will fall to the floor.

Peter Schiff seemed to notice that the "hit was missed," while the vast majority fell victim to the same flaw in logic that Herbert Hoover did. Most people who do not know who Hoover was dismiss him as a rather ignorant person. However, Hoover was an engineering genius; the dam is rightfully named for him. What Hoover did not understand, though, was that gravity affects everything in the universe, including economies and thoughts. Despite being a gifted engineer, he chose to allow the economy to recover on its own based on the theory that "what goes up must come down, so, paradoxically, that which goes down must come up." The flaw is obvious when considering gravitational theory.

If you notice the panels of people disagreeing with Schiff, they all had the same conclusions for different reasons. Just as the gravitational pull of Earth turns a small meteorite into a rock, actually gaining the weight of the rock while consuming its separateness, gravity consumed the disagreements of "the other experts" while gaining the weight of popular thought. None of "the other experts" agreed on why they reached the same conclusion, but they were unified in poking jabs at the one person who defied the gravitational pull of the similar conclusion despite truly disagreeing with one another.

Does that make any sense to you?

Goldwing Tom wrote:
Peter Schiff seemed to notice that the "hit was missed," while the vast majority fell victim to the same flaw in logic that Herbert Hoover did. Most people who do not know who Hoover was dismiss him as a rather ignorant person. However, Hoover was an engineering genius; the dam is rightfully named for him. What Hoover did not understand, though, was that gravity affects everything in the universe, including economies and thoughts. Despite being a gifted engineer, he chose to allow the economy to recover on its own based on the theory that "what goes up must come down, so, paradoxically, that which goes down must come up." The flaw is obvious when considering gravitational theory.

How would Peter Schiff's proposed plan of action at this point in time be different than the "laizzes faire" solution that Hoover was a fan of?

more jake jokes wrote:

Goldwing Tom wrote:
Peter Schiff seemed to notice that the "hit was missed," while the vast majority fell victim to the same flaw in logic that Herbert Hoover did. Most people who do not know who Hoover was dismiss him as a rather ignorant person. However, Hoover was an engineering genius; the dam is rightfully named for him. What Hoover did not understand, though, was that gravity affects everything in the universe, including economies and thoughts. Despite being a gifted engineer, he chose to allow the economy to recover on its own based on the theory that "what goes up must come down, so, paradoxically, that which goes down must come up." The flaw is obvious when considering gravitational theory.

How would Peter Schiff's proposed plan of action at this point in time be different than the "laizzes faire" solution that Hoover was a fan of?

Hoover actually wasn't offering a laissez faire solution. This is a common misunderstanding. Here is an excerpt from independent.org that talks about it:

"Instead of letting wages, prices, and investment fall to restore equilibrium in the market, Hoover pushed businesses to keep wages and investment high, despite falling demand for their products. He created public works programs that also kept wages artificially high and signed a draconian hike in tariffs that declared economic warfare on the world. But most important, Hoover flooded the market with credit even though excessive increases in the money supply—mostly during predecessor Calvin Coolidge’s one-and-a-half terms—had created conditions in which businesses had been tricked into a sense of false prosperity and thus had undertaken excessive investment. The reduction of that bad investment had led to the recession in the first place. Now Hoover was trying to artificially pump up the economy, which made the inevitable economic malaise even more dire. FDR then came into office and continued Hoover’s government intervention into the marketplace on a massive scale."

Hoover actually heavily intervened in the economy. If you want to have a detailed history of money and banking in the US, please read "History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II" by Murray Rothbard. This book provides a very detailed history with proven sources throughout. You can find the book for free online at http://mises.org/books/historyofmoney.pdf.

Hoover did not let the market take care of the problems that intervention started in the first place. He initiated price controls, subsidies, credit injection, and more. This is the opposite of laissez faire and this is why the depression lasted for a decade. We are now repeating that history.

OK. I was referring to his attitude post stock market crash. I learned that the reason the depression lasted so long is because he didn't get the government involved in providing jobs like FDR did.
It's going to take a while for me to pick through the stuff I was taught in public school and find out what really went down.

more jake jokes wrote:OK. I was referring to his attitude post stock market crash. I learned that the reason the depression lasted so long is because he didn't get the government involved in providing jobs like FDR did.
It's going to take a while for me to pick through the stuff I was taught in public school and find out what really went down.

Yeah, I didn't learn that history accurately in school either. You and I learned it the way that most Americans learned it. Many people have a misunderstanding of the Great Depression.

I just watched the last half of the video for the first time and at 7:14 I crapped my pants. Is Pete a prophet or does he actually make sense of the mayhem?

more jake jokes wrote:I just watched the last half of the video for the first time and at 7:14 I crapped my pants. Is Pete a prophet or does he actually make sense of the mayhem?

Seeing the economic events through Keynesian eyes, it looks like mayhem. Seeing these events transpire through Austrian eyes, it makes perfect sense. This is why Austrians (Mises and Hayek) predicted the Great Depression, the inflation of the 70s (Rothbard), the dot-com bubble crash (Schiff and others from the Mises Institute), the housing bubble crash (Schiff and others from the Mises institute), and the current situation (Schiff and others from the Mises Institute). It makes perfect sense as long as someone understands the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

Here is another guy who has been consistently right. Meet Jim Rogers.

I do know one of the reasons that the depression lasted so long, and you guys might know about this, was the smoot-hawley act that put tarriffs on over 20,000 imported goods. In retaliation, other countries did the same and U.S. imports and exports dropped by- I think- over 50%. But the bigger point is this: Obama wants to do the same. These next four years might be disastrous.

Very good video.

I almost got through that whole video.

Then I got too angry, so I had to stop.

Who wants to bet on which month and year Paulson is indicted? I'm gonna say 8/09.

I'll also give five bucks to anyone who can present me with ten people who believe Paulson isn't a crook. They can't be in his immediate family, the Bush Administration, or the Fed.

I mean, seriously, it's a shame that the American people aren't as attentive as they ought to be. This is the sorta time we ought to be getting our pitchforks and torches out, storming the Bastille style. Seriously, it's just plain disgraceful. The fact that there isn't a deafening outcry against Paulson is one of the reasons I worry for my country.