Quote:
You mean they had the massive "skill" it takes to say that "oh hey ... one of these days, there's gonna be a recession!" How ever did a broken clock manage to turn out right...?

Appearently, one broken clock was more right than all Keynesian clowns put together.

Quote:
Tell us to listen to him all you like, but I dare you to put your money where your mouth is....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schiff#Responses

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote:
You mean they had the massive "skill" it takes to say that "oh hey ... one of these days, there's gonna be a recession!" How ever did a broken clock manage to turn out right...?

Appearently, one broken clock was more right than all Keynesian clowns put together.

lulz .... not even close.


But even ignoring the "Keynesians" who had it right, if you think losing boatloads of his investor money makes him a genius, I'll let you run with that.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote:
You mean they had the massive "skill" it takes to say that "oh hey ... one of these days, there's gonna be a recession!" How ever did a broken clock manage to turn out right...?

Appearently, one broken clock was more right than all Keynesian clowns put together.

lulz .... not even close.

Erudite.

Quote:
But even ignoring the "Keynesians" who had it right

Like?

Quote: if you think losing boatloads of his investor money makes him a genius, I'll let you run with that.

Your claims of losing boatloads of money are based on the complaints of a single investor's portofolio, or so would wikipedia have us believe. Did he underperform all those clever bankers and their financial stocks?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schiff#Responses

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Your claims of losing boatloads of money are based on the complaints of a single investor's portofolio, or so would wikipedia have us believe.

Peter Schiff's brother about the investment firm:

Quote: While it is true, that our accounts have suffered badly in 2008......

Straight from the horse's mouth.








Thanks for playing. Please come again sometime.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schiff#Responses

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Your claims of losing boatloads of money are based on the complaints of a single investor's portofolio, or so would wikipedia have us believe.

Peter Schiff's brother about the investment firm:

Quote: While it is true, that our accounts have suffered badly in 2008......

Straight from the horse's mouth.

But did they underperform relative to the market? It has taken a beating all around lately, in case you hadnt noticed.

Im not claiming mr schiff has all the answers, but more than any Keynesian ive heard of. Are there any with anything resembling a coherent view of the situation? You were going to show me some, remember?

All i hear is 'LULZ let create a new bubble that will solve all problems. w00t 0% interest FTW!!'

Have you ever stopped to think that Keynesian economics might derive its popularity from the fact that its recipe is always welcome to politicians? 'Print and spend money now, and all will be fine!'

Thats an appealing message to a politician with a 4-year time horizon.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Peter Schiff's brother about the investment firm:

Quote: While it is true, that our accounts have suffered badly in 2008......

Straight from the horse's mouth.

But did they underperform relative to the market? It has taken a beating all around lately, in case you hadnt noticed.

But, but .... Peter Schiff sees all and knows all! What can it matter how much money any of those Keynesian phonies may have lost? [/sarcasm]


FYI though. PIMCO had some decent funds in 2008.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Im not claiming mr schiff has all the answers, but more than any Keynesian ive heard of. Are there any with anything resembling a coherent view of the situation? You were going to show me some, remember?

Would it matter. You suddenly going to start touting the wonders of mainstream economics because I list people who saw the banking troubles brewing as far back as 2001? Getting into some sort of "prognostication" e-peening seems like a pointless diversion, so I'm fine with just exposing all that "Schiff made all of the right calls" horsecrap for what it is. Betting on him has been a sure money loser. Period.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Peter Schiff's brother about the investment firm:

Quote: While it is true, that our accounts have suffered badly in 2008......

Straight from the horse's mouth.

But did they underperform relative to the market? It has taken a beating all around lately, in case you hadnt noticed.

But, but .... Peter Schiff sees all and knows all! What can it matter how much money any of those Keynesian phonies may have lost? [/sarcasm]

Schiff is a human being without perfect foresight. But ill take that as an admission he did indeed beat the market.

Quote:
FYI though. PIMCO had some decent funds in 2008.

There are countless funds, all run by mainstream economists. Sure, there will be a few that do well.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Im not claiming mr schiff has all the answers, but more than any Keynesian ive heard of. Are there any with anything resembling a coherent view of the situation? You were going to show me some, remember?

Would it matter. You suddenly going to start touting the wonders of mainstream economics because I list people who saw the banking troubles brewing as far back as 2001?

No, it wouldnt. Mainstream economics as a whole was simply wrong. That you can find an outlier or two (note that you havnt yet) doesnt prove a thing compared to the armies of morons who didnt see anything untill it hit them in the face.

Quote: Getting into some sort of "prognostication" e-peening seems like a pointless diversion, so I'm fine with just exposing all that "Schiff made all of the right calls" horsecrap for what it is. Betting on him has been a sure money loser. Period.

Im not saying anything about him making all the right calls, but i supose it makes for a nice strawman.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
A) Try to pigeonhole me all that you want, but I understand the Austrian pseudo-scientists well enough.... perhaps even better than you. In any case, what is more numbingly trite than "people like me" are people who predictably throw up tired defenses of the Austrians that sound like, "well, if you doesn't agree with it, that must mean you don't know enough about it."

By pigeonholing you must mean "give the benefit of doubt", I never assumed you were militantly mischaracterizing the school based on some agenda. It was kinder to assume you were merely ignorant rather than willfully ignorant.

Quote:
"[economic] premises do not have to be (indeed, cannot be) verified by appeal to statistical fact."

also see Rothbard a paragraph later.

Quote: This is precisely the nub of the issue. All the positivist procedures are
based on the physical sciences. It is physics that knows or can know its
“facts” and can test its conclusions against these facts, while being
completely ignorant of its ultimate assumptions. In the sciences of human
action, on the other hand, it is impossible to test conclusions. There is no
laboratory where facts can be isolated and controlled; the “facts” of human
history are complex ones, resultants of many causes. These causes can only
be isolated by theory, theory that is necessarily a priori to these historical
(including statistical) facts. Of course, Professor Hutchison would not go
this far in rejecting empirical testing of theorems; but, being commendably
skeptical of the possibilities of testing (though not of its desirability), he
insists that the assumptions be verified as well.

Quote:
Saying that you don't have to bother testing for facts against your theories --- it doesn't get much further from science than that. You seem unaware of this, so perhaps YOU need to gain some accurate knowledge of the Austrian pseudo-scientists so that you can come back and speak from a foundation of understanding.

Having just quoted Rothbard on the subject you assume to be addressing, and finding that your text is a mischaracterization of both his statement and the meaning of it can you now admit that you're either;

a)Intentionally mischaracterizing the topic so as to forward your preconceptions.

b)Ignorant of the actually meaning and well outside the scope of your understanding.

Of course not. Bring on the chicanery.

Quote:
For an even worse anti-scientific declaration, we can refer to Rothbard's mentor .... Mr. Austrian "Economics" himself, Ludwig von Mises:

Quote: [the system I use is composed only of] statements and propositions ... not derived from experience....
They are not subject to ... falsification on the grounds of ... facts.

Rejecting the entire idea of falsifiability is obviously counter to the methods of science. I suppose that declaring all of your armchair-theorizing to be immune from real-world data makes for pretty awesome protection from criticism, though :dunno:

Quote: :dunno:

You should have left it at that.

Quote:
Anyways... with the sort of ancient method that the Austrian bunch uses, it boils down to the situation that even *if* an Austrian "economist" happens to promote a conclusion which matches reality, we can trust their word no more than we would any other pseudo-scientist, such as a tarot card reader who told us that "you have an unlucky day ahead of you." But, if you're into palm-readers and such, feel free to continue telling us all about how wonderful these guys are.

Didn't watch the video I assume. Or are you willfully ignoring the specifics that were discussed?

[Edited by - Dreddnafious Maelstrom on July 25, 2009 2:45:14 PM]

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
You mean they had the massive "skill" it takes to say that "oh hey ... one of these days, there's gonna be a recession!" How ever did a broken clock manage to turn out right...?

Again, I have to ask, "Simple ignorance or willfull mischaracterization?" I don't know you well enough to know whether you're just that ignorant of the facts or whether you're the type that will say anything to "win" an internet debate.

When mainstream econ was saying "Buy Merrill Lynch" and "Buy Financials" several Austrians are on record saying the economy was going to tank and it was going to tank because of the financial industry. The video I linked is time and again that very scenario playing out on national television. Not "there's going to be a recession" but, "The subprime mortgage market is going to precipitate a credit crises and the finanical sector will lead the way into a sustained recession." This while the peanut gallery is predicting a 10% increase in housing values and issuing a strong buy recommendation on Washington Mutual.

Quote:
Oh... the guy who said that the price of gold will hit $2000 an ounce in 2009 (and it's still only hovering at $950)? And the same guy who's so sagacious that he lost tons of money for the people who trusted his investment company... with portfolios like this disaster being so bad that had to try and defend himself?


http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/01/so-why-is-journal-sort-of-defending.html

He got blasted by a client of his company's in this video
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message654865/pg1

Tell us to listen to him all you like, but I dare you to put your money where your mouth is....

I'm not entirely sure you understand the difference between qualitative and quantitative. Pointing out a quantitative shortcoming as evidence against a qualitative economic philosophy is what's confusing me. On the positive side it means you're likely just ignorant of the topic rather than disengenuous.(I say that without malice)

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
But, but .... Peter Schiff sees all and knows all! What can it matter how much money any of those Keynesian phonies may have lost? [/sarcasm]

Who's saying that? More dramatization to support your fundamentally unsound position? Schiff completely missed the flight to US Treasuries. I did also to be honest. I frankly expected the dollar to crater against the Canadian and the Euro. I trade on a currency simulator to keep my skills sharp because I'm not trading in the real market any longer and I lost my simulated shorts.

So the question is, does failing to see the "monkey see, monkey do" strategy forthcoming in a quantitative test dismiss the qualitative forecast of the financial bubble? This forecast, at the time, was met with cries of "chicken little" by the bulk of neo-classical economic schools, as well as Keynesian and Chicago School.

To my knowledge, no one here is trying to lionize Schiff. He's just the guy getting the press right now, you could as well look to Caplan or De Soto.