Ignore Ron Paul are the new marching orders?

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=Arraya][quote=AN]
If he only invest in countries that support his view, then where does he put this clients’ money?[/quote]

Your missing my point – according to Schiff’s own views, it should be a terrible place to invest. So there is a logical inconsistency with him. I’m not talking principles – we all now making money usurps principles. I’m talking about his own analysis of what makes an economy sound is the EXACT opposite of what China does and is.[/quote]
In that case, doesn’t he also recommend investing in India as well? They’re democratic. Do you think China’s growth is because of the Communist regime or because of something else?[/quote]

Cheap labor…

[Arraya]

I’m not sure, but I know he is big on China. China is state capitalist, not communist. China’s growth was that of a parasite on the backs of a multi-decade, western debt orgy. The question is now that the west is in relative contraction(from the debt orby) can it keep it up. Both india and china have surging energy needs which are going to bump right up against ours. Most likely the west will get knocked down in consumption – which will equate a long drawn out economic contraction.

[Arraya]

I’m not sure, but I know he is big on China. China is state capitalist, not communist. China’s growth was that of a parasite on the backs of a multi-decade, western debt orgy. The question is now that the west is in relative contraction(from the debt orby) can it keep it up. Both india and china have surging energy needs which are going to bump right up against ours. Most likely the west will get knocked down in consumption – which will equate a long drawn out economic contraction.

[Arraya]

I’m not sure, but I know he is big on China. China is state capitalist, not communist. China’s growth was that of a parasite on the backs of a multi-decade, western debt orgy. The question is now that the west is in relative contraction(from the debt orby) can it keep it up. Both india and china have surging energy needs which are going to bump right up against ours. Most likely the west will get knocked down in consumption – which will equate a long drawn out economic contraction.

[Arraya]

I’m not sure, but I know he is big on China. China is state capitalist, not communist. China’s growth was that of a parasite on the backs of a multi-decade, western debt orgy. The question is now that the west is in relative contraction(from the debt orby) can it keep it up. Both india and china have surging energy needs which are going to bump right up against ours. Most likely the west will get knocked down in consumption – which will equate a long drawn out economic contraction.

[Arraya]

I’m not sure, but I know he is big on China. China is state capitalist, not communist. China’s growth was that of a parasite on the backs of a multi-decade, western debt orgy. The question is now that the west is in relative contraction(from the debt orby) can it keep it up. Both india and china have surging energy needs which are going to bump right up against ours. Most likely the west will get knocked down in consumption – which will equate a long drawn out economic contraction.

[an]

[quote=CA renter][quote=AN][quote=Arraya][quote=AN]
If he only invest in countries that support his view, then where does he put this clients’ money?[/quote]

Your missing my point – according to Schiff’s own views, it should be a terrible place to invest. So there is a logical inconsistency with him. I’m not talking principles – we all now making money usurps principles. I’m talking about his own analysis of what makes an economy sound is the EXACT opposite of what China does and is.[/quote]
In that case, doesn’t he also recommend investing in India as well? They’re democratic. Do you think China’s growth is because of the Communist regime or because of something else?[/quote]

Cheap labor…[/quote]
China started to outsource to Vietnam and other countries with even cheaper labor.

[an]

[quote=CA renter][quote=AN][quote=Arraya][quote=AN]
If he only invest in countries that support his view, then where does he put this clients’ money?[/quote]

Your missing my point – according to Schiff’s own views, it should be a terrible place to invest. So there is a logical inconsistency with him. I’m not talking principles – we all now making money usurps principles. I’m talking about his own analysis of what makes an economy sound is the EXACT opposite of what China does and is.[/quote]
In that case, doesn’t he also recommend investing in India as well? They’re democratic. Do you think China’s growth is because of the Communist regime or because of something else?[/quote]

Cheap labor…[/quote]
China started to outsource to Vietnam and other countries with even cheaper labor.

[an]

[quote=CA renter][quote=AN][quote=Arraya][quote=AN]
If he only invest in countries that support his view, then where does he put this clients’ money?[/quote]

Your missing my point – according to Schiff’s own views, it should be a terrible place to invest. So there is a logical inconsistency with him. I’m not talking principles – we all now making money usurps principles. I’m talking about his own analysis of what makes an economy sound is the EXACT opposite of what China does and is.[/quote]
In that case, doesn’t he also recommend investing in India as well? They’re democratic. Do you think China’s growth is because of the Communist regime or because of something else?[/quote]

Cheap labor…[/quote]
China started to outsource to Vietnam and other countries with even cheaper labor.

[an]

[quote=CA renter][quote=AN][quote=Arraya][quote=AN]
If he only invest in countries that support his view, then where does he put this clients’ money?[/quote]

Your missing my point – according to Schiff’s own views, it should be a terrible place to invest. So there is a logical inconsistency with him. I’m not talking principles – we all now making money usurps principles. I’m talking about his own analysis of what makes an economy sound is the EXACT opposite of what China does and is.[/quote]
In that case, doesn’t he also recommend investing in India as well? They’re democratic. Do you think China’s growth is because of the Communist regime or because of something else?[/quote]

Cheap labor…[/quote]
China started to outsource to Vietnam and other countries with even cheaper labor.

[an]

[quote=CA renter][quote=AN][quote=Arraya][quote=AN]
If he only invest in countries that support his view, then where does he put this clients’ money?[/quote]

Your missing my point – according to Schiff’s own views, it should be a terrible place to invest. So there is a logical inconsistency with him. I’m not talking principles – we all now making money usurps principles. I’m talking about his own analysis of what makes an economy sound is the EXACT opposite of what China does and is.[/quote]
In that case, doesn’t he also recommend investing in India as well? They’re democratic. Do you think China’s growth is because of the Communist regime or because of something else?[/quote]

Cheap labor…[/quote]
China started to outsource to Vietnam and other countries with even cheaper labor.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]
So, everybody needs to abandon the myth that the “government” due to misguided socialistic policies created the housing bubble. The government played a supportive role to the private industry in maximizing short-term profits as well as socializing gambling loses. Just like every other country that had a bubble.[/quote]

A couple notes here Arraya. And I’m not sure how much sarcasm is included in your post, but for the purpose of thise response, I’ll assume (and I suspect) none. Which makes your comment spot on.

First, there’s a big difference between saying the GSE’s weren’t responsible for the bubble and that the government was blameless. The GSE’s weren’t blameless, they were just a small part. But the government certainly wasn’t blameless. (I’d dispute the use of the socialistic tag, mostly because when government actions acts solely in support of private industry, that’s fascist policy, not socialistic.)

I find it hard to place primary blame for criminal actions on anyone other than the criminals. And the criminal enterprise was the financial industry. The loan originators and syndicators. But the government agencies (including congress) in charge of overseeing and regulating these industries were probably a close 2nd. The SEC, the Fed, Comptroller of the currency, Treasury, and more. They all f’d up beyond belief. Conspiracy to do so? I’m not real big on conspiracies. I’d go with Occam’s razor here, the much more simple explanation is gross negligence. In a different context, it would be criminal complacency.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]
So, everybody needs to abandon the myth that the “government” due to misguided socialistic policies created the housing bubble. The government played a supportive role to the private industry in maximizing short-term profits as well as socializing gambling loses. Just like every other country that had a bubble.[/quote]

A couple notes here Arraya. And I’m not sure how much sarcasm is included in your post, but for the purpose of thise response, I’ll assume (and I suspect) none. Which makes your comment spot on.

First, there’s a big difference between saying the GSE’s weren’t responsible for the bubble and that the government was blameless. The GSE’s weren’t blameless, they were just a small part. But the government certainly wasn’t blameless. (I’d dispute the use of the socialistic tag, mostly because when government actions acts solely in support of private industry, that’s fascist policy, not socialistic.)

I find it hard to place primary blame for criminal actions on anyone other than the criminals. And the criminal enterprise was the financial industry. The loan originators and syndicators. But the government agencies (including congress) in charge of overseeing and regulating these industries were probably a close 2nd. The SEC, the Fed, Comptroller of the currency, Treasury, and more. They all f’d up beyond belief. Conspiracy to do so? I’m not real big on conspiracies. I’d go with Occam’s razor here, the much more simple explanation is gross negligence. In a different context, it would be criminal complacency.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]
So, everybody needs to abandon the myth that the “government” due to misguided socialistic policies created the housing bubble. The government played a supportive role to the private industry in maximizing short-term profits as well as socializing gambling loses. Just like every other country that had a bubble.[/quote]

A couple notes here Arraya. And I’m not sure how much sarcasm is included in your post, but for the purpose of thise response, I’ll assume (and I suspect) none. Which makes your comment spot on.

First, there’s a big difference between saying the GSE’s weren’t responsible for the bubble and that the government was blameless. The GSE’s weren’t blameless, they were just a small part. But the government certainly wasn’t blameless. (I’d dispute the use of the socialistic tag, mostly because when government actions acts solely in support of private industry, that’s fascist policy, not socialistic.)

I find it hard to place primary blame for criminal actions on anyone other than the criminals. And the criminal enterprise was the financial industry. The loan originators and syndicators. But the government agencies (including congress) in charge of overseeing and regulating these industries were probably a close 2nd. The SEC, the Fed, Comptroller of the currency, Treasury, and more. They all f’d up beyond belief. Conspiracy to do so? I’m not real big on conspiracies. I’d go with Occam’s razor here, the much more simple explanation is gross negligence. In a different context, it would be criminal complacency.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]
So, everybody needs to abandon the myth that the “government” due to misguided socialistic policies created the housing bubble. The government played a supportive role to the private industry in maximizing short-term profits as well as socializing gambling loses. Just like every other country that had a bubble.[/quote]

A couple notes here Arraya. And I’m not sure how much sarcasm is included in your post, but for the purpose of thise response, I’ll assume (and I suspect) none. Which makes your comment spot on.

First, there’s a big difference between saying the GSE’s weren’t responsible for the bubble and that the government was blameless. The GSE’s weren’t blameless, they were just a small part. But the government certainly wasn’t blameless. (I’d dispute the use of the socialistic tag, mostly because when government actions acts solely in support of private industry, that’s fascist policy, not socialistic.)

I find it hard to place primary blame for criminal actions on anyone other than the criminals. And the criminal enterprise was the financial industry. The loan originators and syndicators. But the government agencies (including congress) in charge of overseeing and regulating these industries were probably a close 2nd. The SEC, the Fed, Comptroller of the currency, Treasury, and more. They all f’d up beyond belief. Conspiracy to do so? I’m not real big on conspiracies. I’d go with Occam’s razor here, the much more simple explanation is gross negligence. In a different context, it would be criminal complacency.

[Author]

Posts