Hilarious video….Peter Schiff cleans Art Laffer’s clock….

[outtamojo]

“as far back as 2006”

That’s a laugher. Many of us were seeing this housing crash coming 2003 and the Pig itself started 2004. This thread in S.I. started in 2001 but did not foresee the rise of the interest only/option arm no doc rubber stamp http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=51347

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=XBoxBoy]Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view???? I mean if he’s an expert, and experts are wrong more than non-experts, then how do we know his argument that experts are more often wrong isn’t wrong itself???

Just asking…[/quote]

The key difference is I’m relying on expert’s research which contains facts and experiments. But I am not relying on expert’s opinion.
I trust scientific evidence from experts but I don’t trust their judgments.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=XBoxBoy]Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view???? I mean if he’s an expert, and experts are wrong more than non-experts, then how do we know his argument that experts are more often wrong isn’t wrong itself???

Just asking…[/quote]

The key difference is I’m relying on expert’s research which contains facts and experiments. But I am not relying on expert’s opinion.
I trust scientific evidence from experts but I don’t trust their judgments.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=XBoxBoy]Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view???? I mean if he’s an expert, and experts are wrong more than non-experts, then how do we know his argument that experts are more often wrong isn’t wrong itself???

Just asking…[/quote]

The key difference is I’m relying on expert’s research which contains facts and experiments. But I am not relying on expert’s opinion.
I trust scientific evidence from experts but I don’t trust their judgments.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=XBoxBoy]Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view???? I mean if he’s an expert, and experts are wrong more than non-experts, then how do we know his argument that experts are more often wrong isn’t wrong itself???

Just asking…[/quote]

The key difference is I’m relying on expert’s research which contains facts and experiments. But I am not relying on expert’s opinion.
I trust scientific evidence from experts but I don’t trust their judgments.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=XBoxBoy]Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view???? I mean if he’s an expert, and experts are wrong more than non-experts, then how do we know his argument that experts are more often wrong isn’t wrong itself???

Just asking…[/quote]

The key difference is I’m relying on expert’s research which contains facts and experiments. But I am not relying on expert’s opinion.
I trust scientific evidence from experts but I don’t trust their judgments.

[Doofrat]

[quote=carlsbadworker]
It’s a dangerous path that I see many very smart piggie are going down with.[/quote]

Ha ha, I laugh in your general direction carlsbadworker. Housing will continue to slide until it hits zero, then the landed poor will have to pay the Piggs to take the houses off their hands. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a fool.

[Doofrat]

[quote=carlsbadworker]
It’s a dangerous path that I see many very smart piggie are going down with.[/quote]

Ha ha, I laugh in your general direction carlsbadworker. Housing will continue to slide until it hits zero, then the landed poor will have to pay the Piggs to take the houses off their hands. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a fool.

[Doofrat]

[quote=carlsbadworker]
It’s a dangerous path that I see many very smart piggie are going down with.[/quote]

Ha ha, I laugh in your general direction carlsbadworker. Housing will continue to slide until it hits zero, then the landed poor will have to pay the Piggs to take the houses off their hands. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a fool.

[Doofrat]

[quote=carlsbadworker]
It’s a dangerous path that I see many very smart piggie are going down with.[/quote]

Ha ha, I laugh in your general direction carlsbadworker. Housing will continue to slide until it hits zero, then the landed poor will have to pay the Piggs to take the houses off their hands. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a fool.

[Doofrat]

[quote=carlsbadworker]
It’s a dangerous path that I see many very smart piggie are going down with.[/quote]

Ha ha, I laugh in your general direction carlsbadworker. Housing will continue to slide until it hits zero, then the landed poor will have to pay the Piggs to take the houses off their hands. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a fool.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=XBoxBoy]Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view[/quote]

The key difference is I’m relying on expert’s research which contains facts and experiments. But I am not relying on expert’s opinion.
I trust scientific evidence from experts but I don’t trust their judgments.
[/quote]

Sorry Carlsbad, you’re only kidding yourself here. Let’s go back and see what you wrote originally

[quote=carlsbadworker]The result is that experts are normally even not as good as non-experts. That’s because they don’t modify their forecasts in the light of new information, as they felt that they knew all the relevant facts. Such kind of over-confidence will blind them from making accurate prediction about the future.[/quote]

The above snippet is clearly a representation of the expert’s opinions. There is no way to prove that the failure to adjust to new information or that over-confidence are the causes of the experts being wrong. The snippet is the expert’s opinion, not scientific evidence or fact.

But hey, don’t take it so personally, I’m just pointing out the irony of what you did. Basically you want to convince people that experts are often wrong. Fine, I couldn’t agree more. But you did so by using an expert’s opinion to legitimize your argument. It’s actually pretty funny if you ask me, and I personally love making these kinds of arguments just to see if I can slide it past the person I’m arguing with. Course, that’s just my warped sense of humor. My only real suggestion is when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don’t try to deny it, just grin and offer the person who’s caught you 50% of the cookies. (Okay, I’ll settle for a 40/60 split…)

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=XBoxBoy]Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view[/quote]

The key difference is I’m relying on expert’s research which contains facts and experiments. But I am not relying on expert’s opinion.
I trust scientific evidence from experts but I don’t trust their judgments.
[/quote]

Sorry Carlsbad, you’re only kidding yourself here. Let’s go back and see what you wrote originally

[quote=carlsbadworker]The result is that experts are normally even not as good as non-experts. That’s because they don’t modify their forecasts in the light of new information, as they felt that they knew all the relevant facts. Such kind of over-confidence will blind them from making accurate prediction about the future.[/quote]

The above snippet is clearly a representation of the expert’s opinions. There is no way to prove that the failure to adjust to new information or that over-confidence are the causes of the experts being wrong. The snippet is the expert’s opinion, not scientific evidence or fact.

But hey, don’t take it so personally, I’m just pointing out the irony of what you did. Basically you want to convince people that experts are often wrong. Fine, I couldn’t agree more. But you did so by using an expert’s opinion to legitimize your argument. It’s actually pretty funny if you ask me, and I personally love making these kinds of arguments just to see if I can slide it past the person I’m arguing with. Course, that’s just my warped sense of humor. My only real suggestion is when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don’t try to deny it, just grin and offer the person who’s caught you 50% of the cookies. (Okay, I’ll settle for a 40/60 split…)

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=XBoxBoy]Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view[/quote]

The key difference is I’m relying on expert’s research which contains facts and experiments. But I am not relying on expert’s opinion.
I trust scientific evidence from experts but I don’t trust their judgments.
[/quote]

Sorry Carlsbad, you’re only kidding yourself here. Let’s go back and see what you wrote originally

[quote=carlsbadworker]The result is that experts are normally even not as good as non-experts. That’s because they don’t modify their forecasts in the light of new information, as they felt that they knew all the relevant facts. Such kind of over-confidence will blind them from making accurate prediction about the future.[/quote]

The above snippet is clearly a representation of the expert’s opinions. There is no way to prove that the failure to adjust to new information or that over-confidence are the causes of the experts being wrong. The snippet is the expert’s opinion, not scientific evidence or fact.

But hey, don’t take it so personally, I’m just pointing out the irony of what you did. Basically you want to convince people that experts are often wrong. Fine, I couldn’t agree more. But you did so by using an expert’s opinion to legitimize your argument. It’s actually pretty funny if you ask me, and I personally love making these kinds of arguments just to see if I can slide it past the person I’m arguing with. Course, that’s just my warped sense of humor. My only real suggestion is when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don’t try to deny it, just grin and offer the person who’s caught you 50% of the cookies. (Okay, I’ll settle for a 40/60 split…)

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=XBoxBoy]Ummmm…. wait a minute… are you basically relying on an expert to justify a particular view[/quote]

The key difference is I’m relying on expert’s research which contains facts and experiments. But I am not relying on expert’s opinion.
I trust scientific evidence from experts but I don’t trust their judgments.
[/quote]

Sorry Carlsbad, you’re only kidding yourself here. Let’s go back and see what you wrote originally

[quote=carlsbadworker]The result is that experts are normally even not as good as non-experts. That’s because they don’t modify their forecasts in the light of new information, as they felt that they knew all the relevant facts. Such kind of over-confidence will blind them from making accurate prediction about the future.[/quote]

The above snippet is clearly a representation of the expert’s opinions. There is no way to prove that the failure to adjust to new information or that over-confidence are the causes of the experts being wrong. The snippet is the expert’s opinion, not scientific evidence or fact.

But hey, don’t take it so personally, I’m just pointing out the irony of what you did. Basically you want to convince people that experts are often wrong. Fine, I couldn’t agree more. But you did so by using an expert’s opinion to legitimize your argument. It’s actually pretty funny if you ask me, and I personally love making these kinds of arguments just to see if I can slide it past the person I’m arguing with. Course, that’s just my warped sense of humor. My only real suggestion is when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don’t try to deny it, just grin and offer the person who’s caught you 50% of the cookies. (Okay, I’ll settle for a 40/60 split…)

XBoxBoy

[Author]

Posts