This Is Unbelievable

By -
Some chump over at some "advice" blog links to video of a series of "esteemed" commentators basically laughing in Peter Schiff's face as he predicts the financial future to a tee! I think everyone who reads this should write Ben Stein a letter and ask what he thinks of his call that Merrill Lynch was being "given away" at $76 now that the stock is at $14. The man should never comment on anything other than eye drops again in his life.

Comments

  1. Silas Barta12:26 PM

    Annoying Silas time:

    How about the theory of evolution? Should Ben Stein continue to comment on that?

    Also, while Schiff did get a lot right, he also -- at least so far -- has gotten a lot wrong too. He predicted that Europe and Asia would be able to just point and laugh while American stocks tank, when they have in fact done worse. He predicted that the dollar would depreciate as a result of the crisis, when so far it's done better (save against the [Y]en).

    He predicted a flight to precious metals, which have stagnated, and a continued rally of commodities, which have tanked. And let's not forget the yields on Treasurys and the lack of hyperinflation...

    Now, there's still a chance these things could happen -- but it'll be a while before we can say he predicted it with the precision you imply.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah2:02 PM

    "How about the theory of evolution? Should Ben Stein continue to comment on that?"

    No, just eye drops. Didn't I already say that?

    Predictions: I was focusing on the predictions in the video clips, which were the one's being laughed at, not other predictions I didn't know about that he made elsewhere.

    "He predicted a flight to precious metals, which have stagnated..."

    After going up to where he said they would!

    In any case, my point was not to claim Schiff was a genius, but that these other folks were real jerks -- and not for getting it wrong -- anyone could -- but for treating Schiff with such contempt.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob Murphy2:26 PM

    Exactly, Gene. (And I'm not a chump!) It's fine to disagree with somebody, but those guys were literally laughing at him--I loved when the one guy said, "What lax lending standards are you talking about, Peter?!"

    And dangit Silas, I was wondering when someone was going to bring up Stein's endorsement of ID. For what it's worth, I deferred to Tim Swanson (and maybe you? I can't remember) who warned me that his movie was goofy. (I haven't seen it.)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more