Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7619
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by moda0306 » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:03 pm

Kshartle wrote:
moda0306 wrote: If gold does another stretch like '81 to '2000 and you lose your job you could hit some huge solvency issue.  Leverage isn't the only cause of insolvency.
If gold does plumment like that then we would have an ultra strong dollar, fear about the economy gone because it's doing so well and people are not looking for safety don't you think?

This would be awesome. How likely is it?
Gold plummets whenever interest rates are unnaturally high (using one definition of "unnaturally".... essentially positive real rates on nominally risk-free assets).

1981 was the ultimate instance of this.  Not exactly the most pleasant time in U.S. history.  Gold dropping doesn't necessarily indicate health.  It just indicates investors in savings accounts can get a phat RoR.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8700
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Pointedstick » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:07 pm

That's actually fairly bullish for gold since abnormally high interest rates don't seem to be on the horizon, if one examines projected rates of inflation, unemployment, fed reports, etc.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7619
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by moda0306 » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:08 pm

technovelist wrote:
Gumby wrote:
technovelist wrote: I can meet my mandatory expenses from Social Security.
Wouldn't that be ironic! :)

(Though, I certainly hope it doesn't come to that for you)
I'm not sure why it would be ironic. I have been forced to pay into the SS pyramid scheme for my whole life; if I had my "contributions" and my employer "contributions", I could have bought a real annuity that would pay about the same amount per year. But since I didn't have a choice as to "participating", I see no problem with getting as much of my money back as possible. (Yes, I know it was spent already, so you don't have to enlighten me on that.)

And I think it is very unlikely that it will come to that, as I have substantial other assets that I could tap if necessary. However, the longer I can postpone that, the better off I will be overall.
But since the money isn't there, the government has to steal from me to pay your SS benefits.  You're taking your resentment of others having stolen from you to justify stealing as much from me as you can get away with.

That's not very libertarian of you, tech.  Sure sounds like you're advocating the use of force to have me pay you for what you had stolen from you.

I'm afraid this loses you another 1,000 liberty points. :)

And if I ever see a picture of you holding a poster saying "GOVERNMENT, GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE," I might have to deduct you 10,000 points.

I kid.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8700
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Pointedstick » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:16 pm

I'm imagining that these are the liberty points:

Image

Of course they have to be physical; no fiat here! ;)
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7161
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by technovelist » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:17 pm

moda0306 wrote:
technovelist wrote:
Gumby wrote: Wouldn't that be ironic! :)

(Though, I certainly hope it doesn't come to that for you)
I'm not sure why it would be ironic. I have been forced to pay into the SS pyramid scheme for my whole life; if I had my "contributions" and my employer "contributions", I could have bought a real annuity that would pay about the same amount per year. But since I didn't have a choice as to "participating", I see no problem with getting as much of my money back as possible. (Yes, I know it was spent already, so you don't have to enlighten me on that.)

And I think it is very unlikely that it will come to that, as I have substantial other assets that I could tap if necessary. However, the longer I can postpone that, the better off I will be overall.
But since the money isn't there, the government has to steal from me to pay your SS benefits.  You're taking your resentment of others having stolen from you to justify stealing as much from me as you can get away with.

That's not very libertarian of you, tech.  Sure sounds like you're advocating the use of force to have me pay you for what you had stolen from you.

I'm afraid this loses you another 1,000 liberty points. :)

And if I ever see a picture of you holding a poster saying "GOVERNMENT, GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE," I might have to deduct you 10,000 points.

I kid.
Ha ha, very funny.

All the government has to do is offer not to tax or regulate me any further, and I'll give up all promised "benefits".

Is that libertarian enough for you?
Another nod to the most beautiful equation: e + 1 = 0
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8700
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Pointedstick » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:24 pm

My proposed change for Social Security is that anyone anytime can opt out of the system in exchange for never ever being able to collect, essentially forfeiting all the money they were already taxed. People who had been paying into the system for a few years or more who opted out would basically represent a 100% win for the government since these people could be written out of the pool of future payees. I would allow the same terms for Medicare. This proposal could be pitched as a way to shore up the systems since there would be fewer people collecting.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Mdraf
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:54 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Mdraf » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:04 pm

Pointedstick wrote: My proposed change for Social Security is that anyone anytime can opt out of the system in exchange for never ever being able to collect, essentially forfeiting all the money they were already taxed. People who had been paying into the system for a few years or more who opted out would basically represent a 100% win for the government since these people could be written out of the pool of future payees. I would allow the same terms for Medicare. This proposal could be pitched as a way to shore up the systems since there would be fewer people collecting.
Nice try but it would fall apart as soon as CNN started running specials on granny eating cat food.

I also think that once they put Obamacare to bed the Democrats will be going after 401Ks, IRAs, SEP-IRAs etc like some European countries are doing. The first move will be an "option" for people to convert their various holdings into T-bonds.  Eventually the option will become an obligation.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7619
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by moda0306 » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:07 pm

Mdraf wrote:
Pointedstick wrote: My proposed change for Social Security is that anyone anytime can opt out of the system in exchange for never ever being able to collect, essentially forfeiting all the money they were already taxed. People who had been paying into the system for a few years or more who opted out would basically represent a 100% win for the government since these people could be written out of the pool of future payees. I would allow the same terms for Medicare. This proposal could be pitched as a way to shore up the systems since there would be fewer people collecting.
Nice try but it would fall apart as soon as CNN started running specials on granny eating cat food.

I also think that once they put Obamacare to bed the Democrats will be going after 401Ks, IRAs, SEP-IRAs etc like some European countries are doing. The first move will be an "option" for people to convert their various holdings into T-bonds.  Eventually the option will become an obligation.
Mdraf,

Do your really think that any admin, democrat or republican, would upset that Wall Street trough that is 401k plans?  They may have different methods of showing it, but both sides love Wall Street.  There'd be so little to be gained by forcing people to buy treasuries when they can control their own debt market.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
Mdraf
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:54 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by Mdraf » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:10 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Mdraf wrote:
Pointedstick wrote: My proposed change for Social Security is that anyone anytime can opt out of the system in exchange for never ever being able to collect, essentially forfeiting all the money they were already taxed. People who had been paying into the system for a few years or more who opted out would basically represent a 100% win for the government since these people could be written out of the pool of future payees. I would allow the same terms for Medicare. This proposal could be pitched as a way to shore up the systems since there would be fewer people collecting.
Nice try but it would fall apart as soon as CNN started running specials on granny eating cat food.

I also think that once they put Obamacare to bed the Democrats will be going after 401Ks, IRAs, SEP-IRAs etc like some European countries are doing. The first move will be an "option" for people to convert their various holdings into T-bonds.  Eventually the option will become an obligation.
Mdraf,

Do your really think that any admin, democrat or republican, would upset that Wall Street trough that is 401k plans?  They may have different methods of showing it, but both sides love Wall Street.  There'd be so little to be gained by forcing people to buy treasuries when they can control their own debt market.
As you know I disagree that they control their own debt market so I stick to my assessment.  I know they both like Wall St but the time will come when they will have no choice.
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7161
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by technovelist » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:11 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Mdraf wrote:
Pointedstick wrote: My proposed change for Social Security is that anyone anytime can opt out of the system in exchange for never ever being able to collect, essentially forfeiting all the money they were already taxed. People who had been paying into the system for a few years or more who opted out would basically represent a 100% win for the government since these people could be written out of the pool of future payees. I would allow the same terms for Medicare. This proposal could be pitched as a way to shore up the systems since there would be fewer people collecting.
Nice try but it would fall apart as soon as CNN started running specials on granny eating cat food.

I also think that once they put Obamacare to bed the Democrats will be going after 401Ks, IRAs, SEP-IRAs etc like some European countries are doing. The first move will be an "option" for people to convert their various holdings into T-bonds.  Eventually the option will become an obligation.
Mdraf,

Do your really think that any admin, democrat or republican, would upset that Wall Street trough that is 401k plans?  They may have different methods of showing it, but both sides love Wall Street.  There'd be so little to be gained by forcing people to buy treasuries when they can control their own debt market.
Oh, that's easy. All they have to do is pay Wall Street big commissions on the Treasury sales, et voila!
Another nod to the most beautiful equation: e + 1 = 0
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9078
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by MediumTex » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:24 pm

technovelist wrote:
moda0306 wrote:
Mdraf wrote: Nice try but it would fall apart as soon as CNN started running specials on granny eating cat food.

I also think that once they put Obamacare to bed the Democrats will be going after 401Ks, IRAs, SEP-IRAs etc like some European countries are doing. The first move will be an "option" for people to convert their various holdings into T-bonds.  Eventually the option will become an obligation.
Mdraf,

Do your really think that any admin, democrat or republican, would upset that Wall Street trough that is 401k plans?  They may have different methods of showing it, but both sides love Wall Street.  There'd be so little to be gained by forcing people to buy treasuries when they can control their own debt market.
Oh, that's easy. All they have to do is pay Wall Street big commissions on the Treasury sales, et voila!
There is more to it than just commissions.

Wall Street loves retirement plans because it gives them a huge pool of money to repeatedly profit from, and not just through commissions, but through the opportunity to always have "dumb money" to sell stocks to when they are high and to buy from when they are low.

If you read our PP book, you may recall the "401(k)asino" illustration, and that's not too far off the mark.  Wall Street loves suckers who will come into the casino without fully grasping the enormity of the house advantage and play basically until they are broke (or at least until they have severely underperformed the market, potentially for most of their careers).

The degree to which this makes mandatory treasury-backed annuities unlikely is hard to fully convey.  I'm telling you, though, it's DOA.  An optional treasury-backed annuity would actually be a REALLY nice option for a plan design like a 401(k), simply because most participants don't understand how to make a lump sum last a lifetime, but the insurance industry will strongly oppose this as well because it would seriously eat into their annuity business.

When I read the "government is going to confiscate retirement accounts" stories, I marvel at how little the reporters seem to understand how all of this works.
Only strength can cooperate. Weakness can only beg.
-Dwight Eisenhower
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7161
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)

Post by technovelist » Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:29 pm

MediumTex wrote:
technovelist wrote:
moda0306 wrote: Mdraf,

Do your really think that any admin, democrat or republican, would upset that Wall Street trough that is 401k plans?  They may have different methods of showing it, but both sides love Wall Street.  There'd be so little to be gained by forcing people to buy treasuries when they can control their own debt market.
Oh, that's easy. All they have to do is pay Wall Street big commissions on the Treasury sales, et voila!
There is more to it than just commissions.

Wall Street loves retirement plans because it gives them a huge pool of money to repeatedly profit from, and not just through commissions, but through the opportunity to always have "dumb money" to sell stocks to when they are high and to buy from when they are low.

If you read our PP book, you may recall the "401(k)asino" illustration, and that's not too far off the mark.  Wall Street loves suckers who will come into the casino without fully grasping the enormity of the house advantage and play basically until they are broke (or at least until they have severely underperformed the market, potentially for most of their careers).

The degree to which this makes mandatory treasury-backed annuities unlikely is hard to fully convey.  I'm telling you, though, it's DOA.  An optional treasury-backed annuity would actually be a REALLY nice option for a plan design like a 401(k), simply because most participants don't understand how to make a lump sum last a lifetime, but the insurance industry will strongly oppose this as well because it would seriously eat into their annuity business.

When I read the "government is going to confiscate retirement accounts" stories, I marvel at how little the reporters seem to understand how all of this works.
I think the government already has a plan like that. It's called, let me see now... oh yes, it's called Social Security.
Another nod to the most beautiful equation: e + 1 = 0
Post Reply