User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 55

  1. #1
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default The accurate voices on the economy

    I thought it'd be prudent, at this point, to start noting the people who have been and are accurately foretelling the direction of the economy because lets face it; an extremely small number of people were actually able to see what hit us, much less give the reasons why we got hit. I don't like doom and gloom, I just like truth and accuracy. I don't have any invested interest or fear in what might come, and neither should you. Yes, some things are uncomfortable and downright scary to think about, but that should not deter one from assessing validity. The future sure as hell isn't set in stone, but it helps to lend an ear to those who have a greater vision of what lies before them.

    1.) Peter Schiff- I've heard this guy talking about what was coming our way since 2007.

    [youtube="e5M7vJ3o47M"]Peter Schiff part 1[/youtube]

    [youtube="Zh-8_QsOfEY"]Peter Schiff part 2[/youtube]


    2.) Gerald Celente- This guy is a trends analyst who's been in the business for many years, and has notoriety within the media for his very accurate economic predictions.
    [youtube="cA_89YYa-mI"]Gerald Celente 1[/youtube]

    [youtube="ItmiMTZFJlM"]Gerald Celente 2[/youtube]

    [youtube="UnzcHvxLW6U"]Gerald Celente 3[/youtube]

    [youtube="7xveH62fQA4"]Gerald Celente 4[/youtube]

    And I will be adding more. One thing you will find is that all these people who saw it coming have similar perspectives on the economy, the government, and just what the causes of this recession are.

  2. #2
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Actually, the future is set in stone.

    Suppose that P is a proposition about the future. Can P be true? That is, can a proposition about the future be true? Would it only become true in the future, or is true right now?

    A particular time is a co-ordinate in space-time. Is a proposition about another co-ordinate in space only true when or if you arrive there, or is its truth independent of where you are in space-time? The latter, of course.

    If a proposition about the future can be true right now, then there exists, right now, a set of true propositions about all future events. Moreover, there is nothing anyone can do to change the members of that set, since any change would mean the set contains a false proposition, and therefore, that proposition would never have been a member of the set to begin with. Thus, this set of true propositions is the stone in which the future is set.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Anja's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    2,967

    Default

    The ones I've listened to and admire are the ones who truthfully say, "I don't know." And it seems as though I am hearing that honest statement more frequently than I did a year ago.

    I know absolutely nothing about economics. But I do know human behavior. And I've heard a few statements which commmon sense tells me are not a good idea.

    I'm just watching it all with a great deal of interest and hope in the future to watch those who are the most assured of their predictions face a deeper sense of what reality is for the common man. No facts. No figures. No statistics. No logic. Just a look at the folks next door. That's where the truth will come from.
    "No ray of sunshine is ever lost, but the green which it awakes into existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith." - Albert Schweitzer

  4. #4
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Part 2

    Now, the New York Times did a story a few weeks ago about the economy. What they revealed was that only TWELVE prominent economists predicted this recession/possible depression. Less than 12 out of thoooousands of economists predicted it. Among them would be Roubini, Nassim Taleb, Peter Schiff, and George Soros (if you would consider them "prominent economists).

    An Economist’s Mea Culpa - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com


    An Economist’s Mea Culpa
    By Uwe E. Reinhardt

    Uwe E. Reinhardt is an economist at Princeton.

    Update | 3:19 p.m.

    If, like every university, the American Economic Association had a coat of arms, its obligatory Latin banner might read: “Est, ergo optimum est, dummodo ne gubernatio civitatis implicatur.” (“It exists, therefore it must be optimal, provided that government has not been involved.”)

    With only minor injustice, one may take this as the overarching mantra to which the core of the economics profession marches. Government is accorded a beneficial role in this vision only to provide purely public goods, such as national defense; to remove private-market imperfections, such as monopoly power on either side of the market; or to deal with so-called spillover effects from private decisions, which economists call “externalities.” These exceptions aside, unquestioned belief in the sagacity, efficiency and beneficence of private markets reigns supreme.

    These thoughts occurred to me as I attended the American Economic Association’s annual conference in San Francisco over the weekend. It offered a humongous smorgasbord of eloquent theory, clever econometric tricks, illuminating empirical insights and a few standing-room-only panel discussions on the shocking surprises the real economy served up as the economics profession was otherwise preoccupied during the past two decades or so.

    Fewer than a dozen prominent economists saw this economic train wreck coming — and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, an economist famous for his academic research on the Great Depression, was notably not among them. Alas, for the real world, the few who did warn us about the train wreck got no more respect from the rest of their colleagues or from decision-makers in business and government than prophets usually do.

    How could the economics profession have slept so soundly right into the middle of the economic mayhem all around us? Robert J. Shiller of Yale University, one of the sage prophets, addressed that question in an earlier commentary in this paper. Professor Shiller finds an explanation in groupthink, a term popularized by the social psychologist Irving L. Janis. In his book “Groupthink” (1972), the latter had theorized that most people, even professionals whose careers ostensibly thrive on originality, hesitate to deviate too much from the conventional wisdom, lest they be marginalized or even ostracized.

    If groupthink is the cause, it most likely is anchored in what my former Yale economics professor Richard Nelson (now at Columbia University) has called a ”vested interest in an analytic structure,” the prism through which economists behold the world.

    This analytic structure, formally called “neoclassical economics,” depends crucially on certain unquestioned axioms and basic assumptions about the behavior of markets and the human decisions that drive them. After years of arduous study to master the paradigm, these axioms and assumptions simply become part of a professional credo. Indeed, a good part of the scholarly work of modern economists reminds one of the medieval scholastics who followed St. Anselm’s dictum “credo ut intellegam”: “I believe, in order that I may understand.”

    An inference drawn from the profession’s credo is that private markets invariably are self-correcting and are driven by rational human beings whose careful decisions serve to allocate scarce resources efficiently — that is, these decisions maximize a nebulous thing economists call “social welfare.”

    “Social welfare” in this view is thought to increase when those who gain from a change in the economy — e.g., a corporate restructuring or deregulation of the financial sector or increased foreign trade — gain more from the change than those who lose from it, even if the gainers had already been wealthy before the change and the losers poor. Thus, few economists were troubled by the explosion of executive compensation on Wall Street or elsewhere in corporate America. It was just the efficient market at work, rewarding these executives for the “value” they were creating. With their model of how the economy works, economists seem to have great difficulty recognizing bubbles in asset values and often are the last to recognize such bubbles, which is why the Fed has never addressed them.

    As far as diagnoses of economic trends and predictions about the future are concerned, the profession’s preferred analytic structure and the groupthink it begets might work superbly well on planet Vulcan, whence hails the utterly logical Mr. Spock of “Star Trek” fame.

    On Planet Earth, however, that analytic prism can seriously blur one’s vision. It simply cannot accommodate the fact that our entire 21st-century banking sector, managed as it is by graduates of the nation’s top business schools, supported by highly trained financial engineers, and monitored around the clock by thousands of allegedly bright financial analysts, immolated itself with highly toxic assets, purchased with borrowed money, and in the process infected the entire world economy.

    And thus the economics profession slept comfortably as Wall Street was imploding. One can only hope that the medical profession would do better, should America ever be struck by a serious epidemic.
    One such TRUE economist would be Nouriel Roubini, who was widely known as Dr. Doom by the media for his grim predictions of a global recession. His voice is not one I had heard before the crisis, but he did predict it all well ahead of time. I agree with his assessment of the situation, though not so much with his avocation of high government spending; a recent stance of his.

    [youtube="dJXrmM9lBTg"]Nouriel Roubini[/youtube]

  5. #5
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Another man whom I've been hearing sound the warning bells for quite some time is Mr. Andre Eggelletion, particularly where the housing market and FED were concerned. This interview was from about 2 months ago, and the guy predicted the dow would hit 7200.

    [youtube="eY08bH1TDxs"] Andre[/youtube]
    [youtube="o5DHX18yIsQ"] Andre [/youtube]

  6. #6
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    A particular time is a co-ordinate in space-time. Is a proposition about another co-ordinate in space only true when or if you arrive there, or is its truth independent of where you are in space-time? The latter, of course.
    "A particular time is a co-ordinate in space-time." I don't believe physics has proven this proposition to be true. However if you look at it from a purely mathematical standpoint a particular time is not a coordinate in space-time. Rather it is either a line or a plane (or possibly something bigger depending on how many dimensions are used). The important thing is that it is an infinite number of coordinates in space-time.

    To put it in lay terms the future is not certain. There are potentially an infinite number of options. (Although the specific circumstances may limit the options to a finite number.)
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  7. #7
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    More to the point, even if the future is absolutely certain, it by no means follows that it is to any degree predictable.

  8. #8
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    To be clear, we're not talking about predicting the future here, so much as noting the consequences of what is occurring in the present (or what was formerly the present when they began warning people). What these guys seem to have in common is... common sense economics. It doesn't take hyper complicated mathematical models (though I'm not saying they don't use them) to tell what will happen when you operate an economy the way we have been doing. You can build all manners of systems and structures up to hide and slither through in the pursuit of money, but the foundation of it, the true core, always remains the same. I think most economists ignore this fundamental foundation and are blindsided to what would otherwise be fairly obvious. The same rules that govern your own house and checkbook (you can't spend more than you earn, and you cant take on more debt than you can handle, or else you will run into a wall) applies to businesses, banks, and the government. We can't keep taking on unbridled debt and printing money til the printing presses explode and not expect that to have a negative effect. The entire scope of the problem goes beyond this of course, but I'm just making a prudent point on one aspect of it.

  9. #9
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    To be clear, we're not talking about predicting the future here, so much as noting the consequences of what is occurring in the present (or what was formerly the present when they began warning people). What these guys seem to have in common is... common sense economics. It doesn't take hyper complicated mathematical models (though I'm not saying they don't use them) to tell what will happen when you operate an economy the way we have been doing. You can build all manners of systems and structures up to hide and slither through in the pursuit of money, but the foundation of it, the true core, always remains the same. I think most economists ignore this fundamental foundation and are blindsided to what would otherwise be fairly obvious. The same rules that govern your own house and checkbook (you can't spend more than you earn, and you cant take on more debt than you can handle, or else you will run into a wall) applies to businesses, banks, and the government. We can't keep taking on unbridled debt and printing money til the printing presses explode and not expect that to have a negative effect. The entire scope of the problem goes beyond this of course, but I'm just making a prudent point on one aspect of it.
    It's a misnomer to say there are common sense economic principals which most economists are ignoring. When it comes to macroeconomics there are several different philosophies, and economists often can't agree on which one is right.

    Also I listened to the first link you posted in your OP, and I can't bear to listen to any of the others. The guy gives neither facts nor theory. He doesn't say what data predicted what would happen, nor does he say which model is correct and why. Instead what he says sounds just like the same ideological crap you hear from any fiscally conservative pundit. He comes across more like a pundit than an economist.

    In contrast I was talking to my dad a few months ago (around July 08) about investing in the stock market, and he told me that a crash was coming really soon and he was pulling all his money out. (He's a retired INTP who spends a lot of free time researching this type of stuff.) He was pulling out because he read a book that said historically whenever oil prices consistently rose 50% or more a stock market crash soon followed. This is the type of prediction I can get behind, because it was based on data that is similar to our current situation. If you can find an economist that actually does something like that, then that is who you should listen to.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  10. #10
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    It's a misnomer to say there are common sense economic principals which most economists are ignoring. When it comes to macroeconomics there are several different philosophies, and economists often can't agree on which one is right.

    Also I listened to the first link you posted in your OP, and I can't bear to listen to any of the others. The guy gives neither facts nor theory. He doesn't say what data predicted what would happen, nor does he say which model is correct and why. Instead what he says sounds just like the same ideological crap you hear from any fiscally conservative pundit. He comes across more like a pundit than an economist.

    In contrast I was talking to my dad a few months ago (around July 08) about investing in the stock market, and he told me that a crash was coming really soon and he was pulling all his money out. (He's a retired INTP who spends a lot of free time researching this type of stuff.) He was pulling out because he read a book that said historically whenever oil prices consistently rose 50% or more a stock market crash soon followed. This is the type of prediction I can get behind, because it was based on data that is similar to our current situation. If you can find an economist that actually does something like that, then that is who you should listen to.
    Your choice. They all use different methods, obviously, and they don't reveal the specifics behind their thoughts as most of the time when you speak to a general audience you keep things in simple terms. Either way, the big picture most/all of them present still applies. And for the record, Peter Schiff (the first guy you couldnt stand) predicted the recession and bursting of the housing bubble back in 2006. I don't remember oil spiking up all the way back then. Results trump personal (yours) idealogical conflictions my friend.

Similar Threads

  1. How well is Obama doing with the economy?
    By Giggly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 01:30 PM
  2. Pelosi calls for birth control to stimulate the economy (eugenics?)
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 141
    Last Post: 02-07-2009, 01:20 AM
  3. Citigroup about the economy and gold price
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-04-2008, 10:58 PM
  4. I suspect that I don't understand the economy
    By Eileen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 09-08-2008, 09:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO