TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » Fundamental Change

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 16-11-10, 01:53 PM
FredFredson's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North America
Posts: 1,749
Default Why Isn't Peter Schiff Head of the Fed?

November 16, 2010
Why Isn't Peter Schiff Head of the Fed?
By Vasko Kohlmayer

American Thinker: Why Isn't Peter Schiff Head of the Fed?

One of the most instructive and eye-opening YouTube videos out there is called "Peter Schiff Was Right." It is a compilation of appearances by Schiff -- president of Euro Pacific Capital -- on TV and cable shows predicting the burst of the housing bubble and the subsequent economic meltdown. (For the original compilation go here, for the second edition here.)

Schiff's appearances cover the period between 2002 and 2007. To most observers, things looked bright then, given that real estate and equities were enjoying an impressive bull run. Americans were becoming millionaires by the thousands as the paper value of their holdings kept mushrooming.

Even though there would be occasional snag now and then, our economic future loomed rich and shiny. It was a time when the pundits kept telling us that we had entered on an era of sustained growth, cheap imports, and endlessly climbing asset prices. They all but asked us to join hands and celebrate the economic and financial panacea we supposedly inhabited.

This is, for example, how Arthur Laffer -- the economic guru of the Laffer curve fame -- saw things in the middle of 2006:

The United States economy has never been in better shape. There is no tax increase coming in the next couple of years. Monetary policy is spectacular. We have freer trade than ever before.


It was in the midst of those happy times that Peter Schiff went around warning of impending doom. In August of 2006, he said this on MSNBC:

It is going to be pretty bad and whether it starts in '07 or '08, I think is immaterial and I also think it is going to last not just for quarters but for years. See, the basic problem with the US economy is we have too much consumption and borrowing and not enough production and savings... it is not wealth that has increased in the last few years; we haven't increased our productive capacity. All that has increased is the paper values of our stocks and real estate, but that's not real wealth no more than the Nasdaq was wealth. If you see the stock market come down and the real estate bubble burst, all that phony wealth is going to evaporate and all that is going to be left is all the debt we accumulated to foreigners.


The experts and analysts who debated Schiff were incredulous at his claims, and many thought he was a crank. Schiff was mocked, derided, and laughed at. Arthur Laffer had this to say in response: "Oh my goodness! I have never heard so many mistakes made in series in my life ... I just don't know where he is getting his stuff."

Another "pundit" mockingly asked Schiff what he was smoking. In their minds, things could never get really bad in America, a country with the best economy ever known. The experts' sniggers notwithstanding, Peter Schiff turned out to be right, and almost uncannily so. Things unfolded just the way he said they would.

Then there is Ben Bernanke, who also left behind a revealing video footprint of predictions from the period when the real estate market was headed for collapse. Unlike Schiff, however, Bernanke did not see anything seriously wrong. Even as the economy was hurtling toward the crash, Bernanke thought things were just fine. In July of 2005, for example, he was asked by CNBC whether there was a housing bubble, to which he replied:

Well, unquestionably, housing prices are up quite a bit; I think it's important to note that fundamentals are also very strong. We've got a growing economy, jobs, incomes. We've got very low mortgage rates. We've got demographics supporting housing growth ... I don't know whether prices are exactly where they should be, but I think it's fair to say that much of what's happened is supported by the strength of the economy.


When the interviewer asked what would happen if housing prices were to come down, Bernanke completely rejected such a scenario out of hand:

It's a pretty unlikely possibility. We've never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis. So, what I think what is more likely is that house prices will slow, maybe stabilize, might slow consumption spending a bit. I don't think it's gonna drive the economy too far from its full employment path, though.


Here are a few more of Bernanke's pronouncements in the period prior to the meltdown as collected by Source Watch:

In February of 2006, the Council of Economic Advisers, of which Bernanke was Chairman, issued a report which stated the following: "The economy has shifted from recovery to sustained expansion. ... The U.S. economy continues to be well positioned for long-term growth." The report projected an unemployment rate of 5% from 2008 through 2011.

On July 20, 2006, Bernanke opined that the American economy was "robust" and "strong."

On February 15, 2007, Bernanke stated, "Overall economic prospects for households remain good. The labor market is expected to stay healthy. And real incomes should continue to rise. The business sector remains in excellent financial condition."

On July 18, 2007, he claimed, "Employment should continue to expand. ... The global economy continues to be strong ... financial markets have remained supportive of economic growth."

On June 9, 2008, Bernanke said, "The risk that the economy has entered a substantial downturn appears to have diminished over the past month or so."

The above should make amply clear that Ben Bernanke just does not have a clue. He has been consistently wrong; he could not, in fact, have been more wrong had he tried.

On February 1, 2006, Bernanke was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve despite his extensive record of failed prognostication and mistaken economic assessments. Since he is also Chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), his word carries decisive weight in matters of monetary policy. The size of the money supply, interest rates, and monetization of government debt all fall under his purview. Because of this, Bernanke personally exercises more control over the U.S. economy than any other person or institution. His powers in this regard far exceed even those of the president or Congress.

The Fed Chairman can regulate economic activity to the extent most people can hardly fathom. He has the power to unleash inflation, determine the value of our currency, and influence interest rates on loans and mortgages in this country. It is no exaggeration to say that his decisions can wreck the economy or destroy the worth of the money we use in everyday transactions.

This should be a reason for worry, given that Bernanke obviously does not know what he is doing. The normally soft-spoken and polite Jim Rogers -- one of the world's most successful and articulate investors -- summed up matters when he said, "Mr. Bernanke has never been right about anything ... Please go back and look up his record. The man just doesn't understand economics." When asked earlier this year what he thought Bernanke would do, Rogers said that he would do the only thing he knows how to do, which is to buy more government bonds.

Fast-forward a few months, and voilą: the Fed is doing exactly that: It is buying government bonds to the tune of $600 billion, thus further undermining the already tanking dollar. Bernanke believes that pumping more money will turn the economy around by stimulating business activity and lowering unemployment. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve does not seem to understand what even a schoolboy can grasp: That printing dollars and buying bonds of our bankrupt federal government just cannot lead to long-term prosperity.

But such common sense is apparently too simplistic for Mr. Bernanke, who was a Princeton professor until shortly before he took up his present position. Lest you may still be tempted to think he is some kind of wizard who possesses esoteric economic knowledge -- which is what Time Magazine would like you to believe -- I urge you to review again the video compilation of his statements leading up to the crisis. You will then see just how accurate Jim Rogers' appraisal of the man was. You will also realize that with him in charge, things cannot work out well. You can bet your last (soon worthless) dollar on it.

And this brings us back to Peter Schiff. Why, one wonders, isn't he the Chairman of the Federal Reserve? After all, he accurately predicted what would happen to the housing market, the American economy, the dollar, and gold. His judgment proved far superior to those illustrious experts, pundits, and government officials who had no idea what was coming down. Would it not be logical to put Schiff in charge? Not only does he have the necessary credentials, but -- unlike Bernanke -- he obviously knows what he is talking about.

Alas, this is too much to hope for. In today's America, the more wrong you are, the better your chances of impressing the establishment. To wit, Ben Bernanke's track record of never being right earned him the top job at the Federal Reserve. Likewise, the mind-boggling inanities of another Princeton professor, Paul Krugman -- who thinks we are not spending nearly enough -- won him the Nobel Prize in economics as well as the position of economic guru at the New York Times.

The so-called experts and pundits who laughed in Schiff's face are still experts and pundits today. If anything, it would appear that their being wrong only enhanced their standing. Art Laffer, for one, is still merrily selling his books on economics.

But this is how it works nowadays. Being wrong or misguided puts you on a fast track to becoming a high government official, a sought-after media expert, or an Ivy league professor. If you happen to be very wrong and very misguided, you may even become all three. And with a bit of luck, you may even walk away with a Nobel Prize.

Is it any wonder that our economy and our country are in such a rut these days?
__________________
"Patriotism means being loyal to your country all the time and to its government when it deserves it."-- Mark Twain

"Inter arma silent Musae"--when the weapons speak, the muses fall silent.

An't nanum hearm deth, doth hwaet ye willath.

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -Voltaire

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.36
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 16-11-10, 03:54 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Yeah, yeah - I remember the guy. He did look like a kook, though. In one interview, he was wearing some bizarre coloured jacket and a bow tie, for crying out loud!

But, hey, substance over style, right?

So what did Peter Schiff wanted to invest in in 2006? Emerging markets equity, foreign currencies away from the US$ and Gold. Well, that's awesome - Except he probably lost 60% in 2008...

You can get things right and still invest wrong. In 99, everyone was saying internet would transform everything. And, lo and behold, it did. But if you invested in the Nasdaq in Jan 99, you're still waiting to recoup your losses or at around zero profit, 12 years on. Ouch. It's the same with China today. China WILL become bigger and bigger. They're 1 billion and more of them. Even if each is producing and consuming only half of what Americans do, they'd overtake them by a significant margin. It does not mean that investing in China will automatically lead to wild riches. A property bust and a banking collapse would, for example, kill your Chinese returns for the next decade, even if China overtakes the USA...

So Peter Schiff is not necessarily particularly qualified to run the Fed. Paulson, otoh...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 19-11-10, 04:34 AM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,149
Default

Originally Posted by FredFredson View Post
It was in the midst of those happy times that Peter Schiff went around warning of impending doom. In August of 2006, he said this on MSNBC:

... See, the basic problem with the US economy is we have too much consumption and borrowing and not enough production and savings... it is not wealth that has increased in the last few years; we haven't increased our productive capacity. All that has increased is the paper values of our stocks and real estate, but that's not real wealth no more than the Nasdaq was wealth.
'cept that's bollocks, innit? It's true value is the price it traded for. Right? Right?

Says so on the tin.

gilles wrote:
Quote:
In 99, everyone was saying internet would transform everything.
You mean, everyone who knew fuck-all about the internet. The blind lead the willingly blind. Nobody on the technical side understood the bubble - it was nothing more than investor hype.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 19-11-10, 09:45 AM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by contracycle View Post
'cept that's bollocks, innit? It's true value is the price it traded for. Right? Right? Says so on the tin.
I don't think that's actually what it says on the tin. The price is the result of supply and demand. "Value", inasmuch as it can be established, is only knowable ex-post once you have had the expected cash flows turned into realised cash-flow and once the discount rate you used in your calculation turned out to be the correct one (or representative) and once your re-investment hypothesis have been confirmed.

Quote:
You mean, everyone who knew fuck-all about the internet. The blind lead the willingly blind. Nobody on the technical side understood the bubble - it was nothing more than investor hype.
I knew plenty of techie guys who were trading at the time. And internet did change everything. I don't remember using forums 15 years ago. I don't remember sending and downloading professional information in internet pipelines 15 years ago. I didn't use Amazon and eBay 15 years ago. Or kept in touch with my friends on FB, or read downloaded books... But what it didn't do is leading to "everyone who invested in the Nasdaq becoming rich"...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 19-11-10, 02:40 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,149
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
I don't think that's actually what it says on the tin. The price is the result of supply and demand. "Value", inasmuch as it can be established, is only knowable ex-post once you have had the expected cash flows turned into realised cash-flow and once the discount rate you used in your calculation turned out to be the correct one (or representative) and once your re-investment hypothesis have been confirmed.
Indeed. In which case, the "value" defined for a good during the bubble is real and true, and it is a logical nonsense to assert that it is "not real wealth". It is real, by necessity; there cannot be a distinction between "paper values" and "real values" - if something was sold, then it's price is its value.

My point reamins that this is a silly position, and the fact that people DO keep distinguishing between value and price, at all levels and sorts of situations, demonstrates that we do in fact know that it is silly, but capitalist dogma prevents us from acting on that realisation.

Quote:
I knew plenty of techie guys who were trading at the time. And internet did change everything. I don't remember using forums 15 years ago. I don't remember sending and downloading professional information in internet pipelines 15 years ago. I didn't use Amazon and eBay 15 years ago. Or kept in touch with my friends on FB, or read downloaded books... But what it didn't do is leading to "everyone who invested in the Nasdaq becoming rich"...
I was referring to the bubble as such. Sure you can do things that you couldn't do before, but that never justified the valuations given to tech stocks. There was an overt assumption that some way to generate revenue would arise in the not-very-distant future, as if by magic. People knowingly invested in companies that had not identifiable way to generate income; this is what I was referring to in terms of the the internet changing everything. The markets seemed to beleieve the usual rules had been suspended becuase of IT. And yet ironically, that most succesful of IT companies, Microsoft, got there by actually selling products, but nobody wanted to hear such mundanity.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 19-11-10, 02:50 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default

Originally Posted by contracycle View Post
My point reamins that this is a silly position, and the fact that people DO keep distinguishing between value and price, at all levels and sorts of situations, demonstrates that we do in fact know that it is silly, but capitalist dogma prevents us from acting on that realisation.
Got a better solution?
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 19-11-10, 02:54 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,149
Default

Originally Posted by Zichao View Post
Got a better solution?
Yes.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 19-11-10, 03:25 PM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by contracycle View Post
Indeed. In which case, the "value" defined for a good during the bubble is real and true, and it is a logical nonsense to assert that it is "not real wealth". It is real, by necessity; there cannot be a distinction between "paper values" and "real values" - if something was sold, then it's price is its value.

My point reamins that this is a silly position, and the fact that people DO keep distinguishing between value and price, at all levels and sorts of situations, demonstrates that we do in fact know that it is silly, but capitalist dogma prevents us from acting on that realisation.
1- They tend to make the distinction ex-post i.e. once they lost their money on the trade. Hindsight is always 20/20
2- Welcome to the problems of "mark-to-market", "mark-to-model" and "mark-to-make believe".
3- If you got a way to estimate fair value that is better than the price, please let us know. I mean, in order for it to be a price, some disagreement about value must be occuring. But, as I said, if you got a way to spot value-price disconnect systematically and in advance, you WILL become rich.

Quote:
I was referring to the bubble as such. Sure you can do things that you couldn't do before, but that never justified the valuations given to tech stocks. There was an overt assumption that some way to generate revenue would arise in the not-very-distant future, as if by magic.
I got one word for you: Facebook. Oh and another: Google.

Quote:
this is what I was referring to in terms of the the internet changing everything.
So some of the metrics used to 'value' IT companies without profits were... original. But that's not what people/Bill Gates meant by the internet changing everything, actually. They meant the actual, physical, ways we'd work and play - was the favoured expression, iirc.

Quote:
And yet ironically, that most succesful of IT companies, Microsoft, got there by actually selling products, but nobody wanted to hear such mundanity.
Actually, they got there by establishing a monopoly. But you're right, pointing this out is mundane...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 5
contracycle, FredFredson, Gilles de Rais, roadkill, Zichao
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0