25 Responses

1. Comment by bonfirejovi

   

   July 26, 2010 at 1:58 am

   well 6 months later and china is buying up all the gold, peter schiff always looks good in retrospect. these clowns just need to accept he is right.

   
   

2. Comment by Nevawake

   

   July 26, 2010 at 2:57 am

   everyone should shutup and lett only Peter Speak.

   
   

3. Comment by htmenow454

   

   July 26, 2010 at 3:41 am

   I think that right now this administration is working in the interest of places like the UK and places that also have universal healthcare. They want the dollar to depreciate so that canadians and europeans will move here with newly appreciated buying power and scoop up these houses that Americans can’t buy because they’re so deep in debt. And if Obama passes Healthcare (Probably) that’s exactly whats going to happen and theres almost nothing that can be done about it. Buy gold.

   
   

4. Comment by glenbobsoapshop

   

   July 26, 2010 at 4:30 am

   Wall street will fall, Rev 18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more. Rev 18:15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,

   
   

5. Comment by dlmaniac

   

   July 26, 2010 at 4:44 am

   It’s true we have the most advanced technology while China does lots of low end production, but it doesn’t change the fact that the extra productivity from tech edge gets overwhelmed by all the burdens government puts out there including welfare, business tax, war spending, universal health care, cap & trade and so on. The burden is so huge corporates choose to outsource jobs to escape it.The outcome is Americans pretend to be richer by spending borrowed money that they can hardly pay back.

   
   

6. Comment by Zeldovich

   

   July 26, 2010 at 5:05 am

   I never said the US economy was entirely like that, but it is to a degree. We have a vastly more efficient economy than China, which is why we’re much richer so we work shorter hours, consume more, etc. Some foreign investors do fund some of our consumption, but in terms of countries, they are extending credit to their best customers. Independent investors obviously seek profts. Either way, demand for treasuries has been going up for a year.

   
   

7. Comment by dlmaniac

   

   July 26, 2010 at 5:36 am

   Well if we really have that many workers producing efficiently like you said then why do we have perennial trade deficit? Why do we have this huge imbalance between import and export? You threw out denial after denial yet hard facts blow them away. The truth is US does NOT produce enough to finance all the spending and consumption. Much of the current unproductive service business will be washed away by marketing force, and US has to rebuild the manufacture base. Ain’t pretty but has to be done.

   
   

8. Comment by Zeldovich

   

   July 26, 2010 at 5:56 am

   If a given number of workers initially spend half their money on consumption and the other half on production, as production gets more efficient, they can consume more and maintain the same standard of living, ceteris paribus.

   Do I have to do all your thinking for you?

   
   

9. Comment by Zeldovich

   

   July 26, 2010 at 6:18 am

   sigh. It should be obvious that rates of expenditure and temporal allocation are one and the same. It’s value over time that matters, and that’s the same in either case. That’s basic math.

   
   

10. Comment by dlmaniac

    

    July 26, 2010 at 6:42 am

    We are NOT discussing time spent on producing & consuming. We are discussing about the balance between the income and expense.

    If a guy spends two dollars on every dollar he earns, he is trouble unless he changes the behavior. You can keep rolling on the funny terms of “lower… higher,.. efficiency…”, but you still have no solution to the imbalance at the end of the day. You have to either produce more or spend less.

    
    

11. Comment by Zeldovich

    

    July 26, 2010 at 7:41 am

    Well, the problem with the Austrian temporal capital structure perspective is that artificially low rates will lead to inflation, some of which the market reacts to immediately due to a shift in expectations. Hence, you have more of a shift toward current consumption.

    
    

12. Comment by Zeldovich

    

    July 26, 2010 at 7:50 am

    70% consumption doesn’t have to be bad.If you take any number of workers and say they initially split their time between production and consumption, increases in the efficiency of production can allow for more consumption without negative consequences, ceteris paribus.

    
    

13. Comment by dlmaniac

    

    July 26, 2010 at 8:13 am

    You can “shift from lower to higher” all you want, but if you don’t produce enough to support your lavish consumption then you get a problem. And US has a big one w/ all the deficit, national debt, welfare obligations, wars, new spending like universal health care, cap and trade and so on.

    Does US produce enough to fund the above. No!! Not when 70% of economy is consumption. They will be funded by perennial deficit, debt, money printing and eventually a currency collapse.

    
    

14. Comment by Zeldovich

    

    July 26, 2010 at 8:35 am

    jobs due to automation. Manufacturing jobs have been disappearing worldwide for years, even in China.

    
    

15. Comment by Zeldovich

    

    July 26, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Well, we’d need interest rates at mroe than -6% just to get the money velocity back to trend, so some carry trade is actually helpful.

    And you seem to be confusing domestic inflation with lower exchange rate values..

    And having a weak manufacturing base isn’t a probelm, considering it just represents a natural shift of output from lower value-added goods to higher. This is known as competitive advantage. Besides, it’s not the manufacturing base that’s been lost so much as manufacturing

    
    

16. Comment by dlmaniac

    

    July 26, 2010 at 9:34 am

    Banks are running carry trade which lets cheap money into circulation and that’s future inflation for sure. And why was there a jump in trade deficit? B/c weak dollar drives import expense up, and that will hit consumers in future. W/ a still weak manufacture industry and yet mass budget deficit, government has no choice but to print more dollar to finance it all, which only exacerbates the situation. Your denial doesn’t fly at all.

    
    

17. Comment by Zeldovich

    

    July 26, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Prices were stable, because money supply was stable. Inflation doesn’t have a lag nearly that long.

    research stlouisfed org/fred2/graph/?s%5B1%5D%5Bid%5D=AMBNS

    Not only do you not look at numbers, but even your imaginative ones are so far off that it makes you look like a fool.

    And where is the evidence that MIses or Hayek claimed the money supply trippled during the decade of the 20s?

    
    

18. Comment by Zeldovich

    

    July 26, 2010 at 10:12 am

    Hence, more money creation would get some of that new money into the economy, but not necessarily all of it. It woudl increase the money supply and as long as the velcity of money doesn’t exceed that of the economy at full-employment, then there is no inflation.

    
    

19. Comment by Zeldovich

    

    July 26, 2010 at 10:28 am

    I’m not sure what you’re textually screaming here, but if you mean that demand for money doesn’t factor into inflation/deflation, then you’re wrong. Supply and demand applies to fiat money as well as gold.

    And the mere creation of new money, ceteris paribus, is not inflation. That’s one of Schiff’s claims, which is stupid on the face of it.

    The money supply has increased drastically over the past year, yet inflation is very low. Why? The banks are hoarding money. It isn’t inflatinary.

    
    

20. Comment by Zeldovich

    

    July 26, 2010 at 11:19 am

    Yes YoY and a half.

    No seasonal adjustments are needed, as summer travel does not double the price of oil, for example.

    And you’re just flat wrong about GDP and apparently don’t know what the GDP deflator is.

    
    

21. Comment by thomasst2

    

    July 26, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    Inflation is increase in the money supply, WITHOUT CORRESPONDING DEMAND FOR THE MONEY. Prices rising (or being higher than they would be absent the monetary increase) is the result.

    
    

22. Comment by thomasst2

    

    July 26, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    Austrians don’t look at price levels to determine economic distortions. E.g. Mises and Hayek reconized that even though prices in the ’20′s were stable, we still had inflation since prices were still higher than otherwise would have been because to Fed increased the money supply threefold.

    Artificially low rates increases production without enough resources saved, which results in production costs rising. The increased production cost show up LATER in goods produced (PPI to CPI).

    
    

23. Comment by thomasst2

    

    July 26, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    First: are you talking YoY or YoY and a half? Second: Are you talking with or without seasonal and hedonic adjustment? Third: despite its absurd aggregation, at least the CPI separates producer goods and Govt spending from consumer goods. The GDP aggregates on top of aggregation on top of aggregation, which is even worse. Then to aggregate even more with aggregation inflation is a recipe for reasoning disaster.

    
    

24. Comment by Ne0mega

    

    July 26, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    the rally to the dollar was a flight from securities. And that was also BEFORE tons of money was printed. Think, you fucking porno fox bimbos!!

    
    

25. Comment by rich232399

    

    July 26, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    those dumdass bitches need to shut the fuck up nobody cares when your talking!