Welcome to PatsFans.com

Faber Warns Of Hyperinflation

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Leave No Doubt, May 27, 2009.

  1. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,608
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    PHD economist Marc Faber of Marc Faber Inc. tells Bloomberg that if the Fed doesn't raise interest rates prices will take Zimbabwe-like gains. The direness of '09 was also prdeicted by Celente early this year and last week by Jim Rogers on CNBC. Ellen Brown also wrote about hyperinflation back in March, wondering about a Weimar type hyperinflation and it was picked up last week by Global Research.

    Read/listen and weep:

    Bloomberg News

    The Weimar Hyperinflation? Could it Happen Again?
     
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,618
    Likes Received:
    170
    Ratings:
    +464 / 12 / -14

    Like I said during the campaign the Obama economics would be like J Carter on steroids. This was tried in the 70's and we had 18% interest rates, this could be worse.

    The populations is older and entitlements are in worse shape. THe spending is larger as a % of GDP as well as the Debt and deficit.
     
  3. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,608
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    The spending began under Bush's watch but Obama's taken it to a whole new level. It's THE FED tho, that's the true culprit here.

    What's interesting about it is how parallel we're running to what happened in Weimar. Obama's methods *could* work except for one thing:

    and the one thing is bolded. How can we beat Wall Street at it's own game when it's none other than Wall Street who populates Team Obama's House?

    Our present govt is so in bed with Wall Street and the Federal Reserve it should be illegal.
     
  4. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    20,192
    Likes Received:
    1,023
    Ratings:
    +2,997 / 28 / -22

    #75 Jersey

    Shmessy warned of that for the past 7 months.
     
  5. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,608
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    I should just get all my economic news here ;)
     
  6. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,328
    Likes Received:
    200
    Ratings:
    +573 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    I think this is a ploy to get all those who are considering buying a house or a car to buy one now before interest rates sky-rocket. :D

    Think about it...it could even work! ;)
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2009
  7. Leave No Doubt

    Leave No Doubt PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    5,608
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    No offense but I'd stick with Faber

    Anyway:rolleyes:, for anyone waiting for Obama's Federal Reserve White House to bail you out,Prominent Economist: Crisis Caused By Government Interventions
     
  8. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,618
    Likes Received:
    170
    Ratings:
    +464 / 12 / -14

  9. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,662
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    It's already happening and there's nothing to stop it. Bread is going to cost about 10 bucks in a relatively short amount of time.
     
  10. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,690
    Likes Received:
    760
    Ratings:
    +2,013 / 41 / -31

    #24 Jersey

    I'm going to Home Depot tomorrow to get a bucket to replace my wallet.
    Was Obama smoking a doob during 1920's history class when they discussed Germany ... or Hungary of the 1940's.

    Like I keep saying either Bush did not spend enough or Obama is spending too much ... the media needs to report this correctly. Obama's people keep saying Bush spent too much ... but how is that possible if Obama felt the need to spend even more to correct things?
     
  11. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    20,192
    Likes Received:
    1,023
    Ratings:
    +2,997 / 28 / -22

    #75 Jersey

    Bush didn't need to correct anything - - he was handed the unrivaled top economy in the world (with a budget surplus, no less) in January 2001 and decided to total daddy's yacht. Obama was handed a burning building and has to break down a few walls to save it.

    65% of the American public understands what you don't.
     
  12. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Bush was "handed" a ticking time bomb. With the CRA-engine driving the artificially hyped real estate values all across America, and with the banks handing out TRILLIONS of dollars like it was candy at Christmas, the recipe for this economic holocaust was set.

    For all the deniers out there, anybody with a mind of their own knows that you cannot have most people playing by the rule of "prepare for the mortgage, get the money ready, and pay it off as PROMISED" while out of the other side of the mouth say: "You want a mortgage?? No problem, the federal government will back you up no matter who you are, no matter if you are a speculator or a dead-beat, no matter what; you got a pulse, you get a loan. Because 'we care.'"

    People with NO STAKE in the economy have NO BUSINESS getting involved with the economy, yet this is precisely what has happened under Carter, Clinton, and the Democrat Congresses.

    Zimbabwe may turn out to be a picnic compared to the "party hearty-got my $500 sneakers on, ain't I cool" crowd who have taken over. I'd say, "God help us", but even God cannot make up for shear stupidity and the arrogance of do-gooderism.


    //
     
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,618
    Likes Received:
    170
    Ratings:
    +464 / 12 / -14



    Bush was 'handed' a country in recession. Look at the stock indexes in March 2000, they were at a peak, by the time Bush entered office the economy was in recession. Then 9-11 hammered the market and business spending. HE did a good job then. Later as we know he allowed the congress to spend way too much.

    Obama is pouring gas on the burning building.
     
  14. atomdomb

    atomdomb Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0


    Shmessy, you of all people should know what Bush was handed. I am sure you noticed the trend of the Nasdaq as Clinton was headed out of office. Bush was handed a bubble that was about to burst. Bush actually had to deal with the Internet bubble and the housing bubble. Obama was handed just what Ron Reagan was handed. An economy in the midst of a brutal recession. Reagan did a pretty good job. Time will tell for Obama.
     
  15. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,452
    Likes Received:
    327
    Ratings:
    +913 / 7 / -3

    No he did not. Dude, you can keep parroting the DNC talking points all you want, but GW inherrited a receding economy, and no budget surplus. Where was this surplus that everyone talks about? They "projected" a surplus, which was more BS, cuz the rug was pulled out from the economy, immediately there after.
     
  16. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    20,192
    Likes Received:
    1,023
    Ratings:
    +2,997 / 28 / -22

    #75 Jersey

    The United States was NOT in a "recession" when Bush was inaugurated.

    The definition of a recession is two straight quarters+ of negative GDP. It has no direct reading from stock market performance.

    You are confusing stock market indexes with national economic performance. They are a factor, but not the same thing. Our markets are up 20%+ in the past 2 months. Are we in a growth period?

    "Later as we know he allowed the congress to spend way too much."

    Oh, if you want to play THAT game, let's examine closer. Clinton had an opposition party Congress 6 of his 8 years. Bush had it 2 of his 8 years. Who is more culpable for "letting" Congress run roughshod over him?

    I see. I guess it was "Congress'" idea to install two major tax cut reforms and blow a trillion on building Iraq's infrastructure at the same time. He was the version of parent who says 'Yes, Junior, you can skip class, not do homework, eat nothing but junk food and you will become a Healthy Rhodes Scholar'. Many people wanted to believe that.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2009
  17. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,618
    Likes Received:
    170
    Ratings:
    +464 / 12 / -14

    The recession started in Q4 2000, neg growth, continued in Q1 2001.



    As above neg GDP....



    So you were OK with the spending of congress under Bush and that he didn't try harder to restrain spending???



    Under Gingrich and the COntract w America Welfare reform was passed and the deficits were reduced. IOW Clinton's major accomplishments happened with the passage of much of the CwA...



    The tax cuts prevented a major recession ofter 9/11, business were cutting back drastically on spending. I have first hand experience with this.

    Revenues went way up as a result of the tax cuts, congress spent it all.

    Obama is pouring gas on the fire, He has quadrupled the debt in 1 freakin year. Mostly on dem pork.
     
  18. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0


    it was not in recession, but from Jan 2000 until election day, the NASDAQ lost over half its value (short term capital gains of NASDAQ listings were almost entirely responsible for creating the budget surplus)

    the economy under clinton did not do anything until the republicans took over the house and senate.......'92-'94 were just as bad under clinton as they were under bush I

    if we could reproduce '94-'00 based on a dem prez and a republican legislation, I would take it every time

    like I mentioned elsewhere, I believe the market was oversold which cause the 20% returns of the last couple of months
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2009
  19. shmessy

    shmessy Maude Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    20,192
    Likes Received:
    1,023
    Ratings:
    +2,997 / 28 / -22

    #75 Jersey

    Once again, your definition of a recession is flatly wrong.

    The negative growth started in Q4 2000 (by the way, the stock and credit markets accelerated down based on the CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS facing the country in November and December of that year). By your telling, when Bush was inaugurated on January 20th, we had one quarter of declining GDP (once again, mostly due to Constitutional Crisis).

    "So you were OK with the spending of congress under Bush and that he didn't try harder to restrain spending???"

    Of course not!!!! Please understand, however, that "spending by Congress" was done 6 out of 8 years by a Republican Congress at the behest of GWB. The man didn't exercise a SINGLE veto during his first 7 years. Especially after 9/11, when the Shrub said "jump" they asked "how high?" - - a fact that destroyed several Dem primary campaigns in 2008 and dogs Pelosi (who DOES need to be removed for the good of the country) today.

    "The tax cuts prevented a major recession ofter 9/11, business were cutting back drastically on spending. I have first hand experience with this.
    Revenues went way up as a result of the tax cuts, congress spent it all.
    Obama is pouring gas on the fire, He has quadrupled the debt in 1 freakin year. Mostly on dem pork."

    Short-term emergency measures often need to be taken. I have no problem with Bush's IMMEDIATE economic policy to 9/11. What his fatal error (for the national economy) was his lack of longer-term vision to provide for the sustainability of our economic power. Give a kid a sugary drink and he will be buzzed for a couple of hours.......but then what?

    Obama will be judged (like Bush - after several years, not 3 months) based on what he does for the economy AFTER the initial sugar-rush.

    ANY IDIOT can cut taxes or stimulate spend. The REAL proof comes with the SECOND stage of the plan.
     
  20. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    It was Congress -- even under Repub control -- that would hear: "... if you don't support the 'new economics' of 'free money for real estate', (GUARANTEED by the CRA) you are nothing but a racist. You HATE black people if you say one word about the CRA (even if it is a total sham forked-tongue policy)". The Dems used this mantra all throughout the past 30+ years.

    Free money?? People who don't know how to protect it and put it to good use -- ie, for the public benefit -- will always throw it away or lose it. Every single time. The housing bubble burst proves it beyond any doubt.


    //
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>