Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Schiff Was Right


This video sequence offers a compendium of appearances (covering the 2006-2007 period) by Euro Pacific Capital president Peter Schiff, who is a frequent -- and frequently disrespected -- talking head on cable news shows. What astonishes is not just the accuracy of his dour predictions about the economy but the sheer arrogance of every other person appearing on these programs.

I don't know who comes off as worse -- the supremely snotty Ben Stein, or the well-named Arthur Laffer. I just wonder how Ben Stein feels about the financial markets as an investment now.

This is an astonishing compilation of clips. It just keeps getting more outrageous as it goes along.
Every time Schiff says something sensible, the pundits surrounding him snort and howl. They treat him with undisguised contempt and hatred, as though he had just called for ending the laws against homicide or reducing the age of consent to three.

What did these "experts" hope to gain by attempting to conspire against reality?

(By the way, I am aware that Schiff was the economic adviser to Ron Paul. I still don't like Libertarians, and I'm sure that Schiff has an ideological angle. But when a guy proves that he can call the shot, then one must give him credit.)

Over the last few days, I have been pondering the real cost of the "bail outs" to date and after googling a bit, I think I have the actual cost and I would like to put it into proper historical perspective.

If we add in the Citi bailout, the total cost now exceeds $4.6165 trillion dollars.

People have a hard time conceptualizing very large numbers, so let’s give this some context. The current Credit Crisis bailout is now the largest outlay In American history.

Crunching the inflation adjusted numbers, we find the bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures – combined:

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

TOTAL: $3.92 trillion

3 comments:

Mr.Natural said...

WOW. This PETER SCHIFF was rigt on the money! You suppose he gets a job in the Obama crew?

mud_rake said...

So the Fox Noise crew dissed the man? How rare! Of course, they know it all.

We're simply printing more money- a novel solution to the problem. i heard one pundit say, 'You ought to invest in print ink if you are looking for a safe place to put your money.'

The utter foolishness of the Bush/Cheney years could not be set into a novel because it would be unbelievable for the reader to imagine a scenario like that plot.

uptheflag said...

Yep, the printing presses will be running at full speed. A year ago we were commenting about the U.S. being $53 Trillion in debt. Now, the figure is $60 Trillion! And, the beat goes on....However, the U.S. will use another method of paying for these programs and the ones to come. We will use borrowing from foreign countries, especially Red China. Then, the result will be the devaluation of the U.S. dollar. U.S. devaluation will cause a crisis of immense proportions. We have to stop this insanity of inflation and continued foreign borrowing. Maybe this is why Obama has brought back the Reagan Administrations 80 year old Paul Voecker, he of the infamous tight money of the early 1980s under Reagan which severely impacted the middleclass. Obama sure is providing us new faces that are capable of thinking outside the box, isn't he? So, far most are the elitist. Where is the "dimes difference"?

Obama will inherit this enormous debt, and it is only fitting that he does, since he is a Democrat, and the Democrats have an equal share in this imploding financial crisis. As the Democrats party in January, let them look around without their blinders on and see D.C. choking in debt. Apparently,
Obama will only contribute to it.

Obama wants this taxcut for the middleclass. The problem is that is a political decision and not a financial decision based on the enormous debt of the country. Obama needs to take politics out of his decisions as FDR did in a number of instances. Putting people to work is essential, but it can't be a giveaway. Obama needs a multipronged economic recovery program that combines cutting foreign expenses drastically, increasing taxes for all at home, restoring the U.S. manufacturing base, and ending U.S. dependency on foreign oil faster than 10 years. What is needed is an address to the U.S. that clearly tells the country what a crisis we are in and that we all have to help pay our way out of it and work our way back to financial stability.