The U.S. Economy: Stand by for more worse news

Here is a very well documented video about the problems that Americas economics have with them and it has predicted many other problems in the past that have come to fruition.

http://moneymorning.com/ext/articles/img/bs-jim-rickards.jpg

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, except that isn't true. Rickards has been pandering this crap for years. He isn't an economist. He's a lawyer and a salesman. If you would have listened to him, you would have bought gold at $1,900+ per ounce. If you want to loose your money, be my guest. And then he can sell you another conspiracy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well his credentials are far superior than yours are. Seems that anyone with a differing point of view is always wrong to you, why is that?



James G. Rickards is an American lawyer, economist, and investment banker. He is a regular commentator on finance, and is the author of The New York Times bestseller Currency Wars: The Making of the Next Global Crisis, published in 2011, and The Death of Money: The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System, published in 2014.

Rickards graduated from Lower Cape May Regional High School in Cape May, New Jersey in 1969.He graduated from The Johns Hopkins University in 1973 with a B.A. degree with honors and in 1974, from the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. with an M.A. in international economics. He received his Juris Doctor from the University of Pennsylvania Law School and an LL.M in taxation from New York University School of Law.

As general counsel for the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM),he was the principal negotiator in the 1998 bailout of LTCM[6] by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Rickards worked on Wall Street for 35 years. Rickards is now the senior managing director for market intelligence at Omnis, Inc., a consulting firm.[3] On March 24, 2009, Rickards presented his view at a symposium at Johns Hopkins, that the U.S. dollar is vulnerable to attack from foreign governments through accumulation of gold and establishment of a new global currency.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...qYG4Aw&usg=AFQjCNGgOrjk4PeGnoNh9bZqQ-KA98ohAQ

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL, and how do you know his credentials are better than mine? Your "economist" has never taken a single esonomics course. He is a lawyer who works for an obscure consulting firm so he says.

 

Because he has published his credentials and you never have, have you?

 

So simply because he published his credentials, you think his credentials are better? That is a pretty low standard. How do you know I haven't published my credentials? And just what has this guy ever been right about exactly? And why is it he is at odds with mainstream economists - you know, guys who have really studied economics, folks like Noble Award winning economist Paul Krugman?

 

I asked what are your credentials and as yet you still haven't said. We know that Mr. Richards worked for many well known businesses and government agencies and was doing so for well over 50 years. I'd say with that background which we know about is a far better one than yours since you don't want to say what exactly it is you have or have done in economics.

 

I asked you some questions, you haven't answered. He was a lawyer for a failed hedge fund. Just what were these "well known" businesses and government agencies he worked for? He now works for an obscure IT consulting firm as a market intelligence director - whatever that means. It sounds like he is a salesman. Answer my questions...I have published my credentials on Sciforums many times. If he is such a great "economist" why has he never been employed as an economist? At the now defunct hedge fund he worked for, he was employed as a lawyer, not an economist or a trading strategist, analyst or a trader. And I will repeat myself, what has he ever been correct about?

 

I guess that you never watched the video by aski

I guess that you never watched the video or read my post #923 by asking me that question for both give you ample information as to his credentials, I figured as much. Again I say that anything others say that goes against your way of thinking are always wrong no matter who they are. I guess I missed your resume when you posted it, sorry, could you find it and repost it here and now? I only posted the video to show another person's views about the OP and not to try and upset anyone. You do know there are others with a far better background in economics than you, or don't you?

 

I have repeatedly asked you for one thing in which the guy you claimed has been correct was indeed correct. You have been dodging that question for some time now. Since you made the claim, one would think you should be easily able to back it up. And you didn’t post a video, you posted a jpg.

As for Rickards, I haven’t challenged his self-published biography. The problem I have is that his self-published bio isn’t consistent with your interpretation of that very simple bio. Nowhere in his bio does he say the things you claim. Rickards claims to be an economist but nowhere in his self-published bio does he say anything about working as an economist. He does say he worked at as a lawyer for a failed hedge fund – of course he doesn’t mention the hedge fund failed in his bio. But it did. Per the man’s own self-published bio, he never worked as an economist, an analyst or a hedge fund manager. Where are all these famous Wall Street firms you claim this guy worked for? They aren’t in his self-published bio.

And you are right; I am not easily impressed with silly baubles. I am not impressed with overly hyped credentials. Nor am I impressed with idiots or those who are making a fortune these days pandering pseudo economics and fictitious conspiracies to right ignorant right wing groups.

Sure there are people with more impressive resumes than mine, but that isn’t the point is it? You don’t have to be a Bernanke to recognize crap when you see it. And the point is you said my credentials were not as good as Rickards without even knowing what my credentials are. Rickards problem is no one outside right wing conspiracy groups takes the man seriously for reasons obvious to anyone with a modest background in business and economics. I do have degrees in finance and business. I also had a 30 year career in business with Fortune 500 firms and started a few businesses. I am now retired and spend my time investing my money. It is what I love to do. And yes I do get pissed with all the ubiquitous right wing ignorance and pandering to ignorance we see these days. It is distressing (e.g. Republican debt default threats).

 

Somehow I must have not posted his talk on video but I shall do so now.





In this dialogue many of his achievements and predictions are stated so I can't pull them out of it you'll just have to listen.
I too am always skeptical about anyone no matter what they profess they have in the form of credentials. He did take and receive a BA with honors and in 1974, from the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. with an M.A. in international economics.
That doesn't mean he worked as an economist but, to me, knows about what is going on within that field. I've never said he was right with all he says but some of his words have a ring of truth to them but you might not think so and that's your opinion.

 

And do you have a background that would enable you to discern the veracity or accuracy of his statements and opinions? Do you know what he is not telling you? In his opening act, he talks about the US government preparing for a disaster. That isn't new or should it be disconcerting. The government has been doing that since before I was born and I am 60 years old. It doesn't mean Armageddon is imminent. Government plans for many possibilities, but that doesn't make those possibilities likely or immediate and inevitable as he conjectures.

 

Give link please. I would like to read them.

 

Economics is called the "dismal science" for the very good reason that Ph.D.s in economics have very conflicting POVs. Often just one holds mutually conficting views of what may happen. Harry Truman summed it up well. After several had given dfferent and conflicting advise and most after telling one possible result would add: "but on the other hand ..."

Harry said: "What I need is a one-armed economist."

 

Well actually, it only called the dismal science by those who don’t understand it (i.e. the ignorant). Further, he term “dismal science” was first used in the 19th century almost 200 years ago to describe a dismal economic forecast….not because the science was wrong but because of what was forecast.

Origin[edit]
“It is often stated, incorrectly, that Carlyle gave economics the nickname "the dismal science" as a response to the late 18th century writings of The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus, who grimly predicted that starvation would result as projected population growth exceeded the rate of increase in the food supply.[2][3] Carlyle did indeed use the word 'dismal' in relation to Malthus' theory in his essay Chartism (1839): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dismal_science
Additionally, Truman wasn’t complaining about conflicting advice from economists. He was complaining about the lack of data. Economists gave Truman various scenarios…not conflicting advice. Unfortunately for Truman, economists are not fortune tellers. Economists don’t have crystal balls. They cannot predict exogenous events and neither can any other science. Macroeconomics is a very complicated subject and there are many variables. If you had taken a course in macroeconomics, which you haven’t, you would be familiar with the term ceterus paribus. It is often used in economics to show how various data sets interact. Macroeconomics is complicated.

“Ceteris paribus or ceterus paribus is a Latin phrase meaning "with other things the same" or "all other things being equal or held constant". A prediction or a statement about a causal, empirical, or logical relation between two states of affairs is ceteris paribus entails an acknowledgement that the prediction, although usually accurate in expected conditions, can fail or the relation can be abolished by intervening factors.[1]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus

Economists don’t have crystal balls. They don’t know what congress will or will not do. They do however know what will flow from those actions based on a set of assumptions about the future. Economists don’t have crystal balls, nor have they ever claimed they do. But then no science has a crystal ball. The lack of a crystal ball doesn’t demean the science as you would have people believe.

So what you are doing Billy T is misrepresenting fact yet again. There is no significant disagreement amongst mainstream and independent economists with regard to most of the science. However, like other sciences, economics has been weaponized and used to advance political agendas. Scientists of all stripes have been hired by the energy industry, the tobacco industry, and folks like the Koch brothers to advance their political agendas. While regrettable, that doesn’t make economics or any other science any less of a science.

Now let’s look at your record of prediction. For years now and contrary to mainstream economists you have been predicting the collapse of the dollar. In fact you predicted the demise of the dollar on October 31, 2014 with a one month margin of error and you doubled down on that prediction just a few months ago. Well October 31, 2014 has come and gone. The 31 day margin of error has come and gone and the dollar is incredibly strong and showing absolutely no signs of weakness.

 

actually you are mixing two of my predictions. The "collapse of the dollar" (no longer the world's reserve currency or the Petrodollar yields to the Petroyuan and or gold) did not have a specified date - I said China could collapse the dollar any time it wanted to but that was not yet in China's long term economic advantage yet. I told the three things China needed to do before it would be. The main benefit of course being that then, with the RMB as the preferred currency (as backed by gold and paying higher interest than US could afford) China could pay for it pay for its imports with printed paper as US has done to large extent for at least three decades. About the "run on the dollar" prediction I have this to say:

Billy T was WRONG and Foolish, but was he also unknowingly right?

As Joe and many others know 8 years ago I violated the fundamental rule of prognostication. I. e. I told both what and when there would be a run on the dollar, followed in less than a year by the world's worst ever and longest lasting depression. (Except for China and the suppliers of essential items it must import.) I gave myself a + or – month “margin of error." We are now exactly two weeks after the 30 November 2014, end of that “window.”

Clearly there has been no run on the dollar of the nature I was forecasting. Economic trouble in Europe and Japan plus increasing political instabilities in several places, even the resurrection of the “cold war,” have made a flood of currencies into the dollar, not out of it; but technically that is also a “run on the dollar.” So except for implicitly getting direction of the fund flows, I was right.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

testing to see if this copies. It shows that tying you your money up for 3 years earns 1%, for 10 years, earns 2% and for 30 years only 2.75%

These are at most 50% of what one got pre-2008 crash because most of the world thinks the USA is the least dirty shirt in the bond laundry basket. This despite the house's just passed 1.1 Trillion dollar increase in the debt during next 12 months. We need to wait 12 months more, to see if I was also wrong on predictions of the worst ever depression follows after the run of funds into the dollar.

Merry Christmas. If me being wrong about the direction of the run on the dollar, doesn't do that for you, perhaps this will: She has gone global. China Daily's front page today! at: http://video.chinadaily.com.cn/2014/1212/4686.shtml As they say: "Real talent will propel you to the top." (26 million views in a few days!)

PS I misstatenly above said: "RMB backed by gold." First time, I have not been careful to say "RMB bonds backed by gold." I have several posts telling that they would be only for the IMF and central banks and even they could only asked for the gold backing once or twice per year via irrevocable request made at least a month before gold at the then current price in RMB would be delivered. China does not want to create a convenient, interest paying, way to speculate on the price of gold.
I think for the "foreseeable future" the CCP wants to have control over the currency - the yuan.

 

Below is part of the 23 Oct 2013 article published in Credit Suisse's magazine: The Finanicialist, entitled: “Bankrupting the next generation”

* That is a 225% increase for every 80-year old and now there are at least three times more of them. = Drastic adjust or collapse.

 

Except it is nonsense, it is the same kind of fear mongering you so love. It speculates about future spending painting a worse case scenario to the exclusion of all other relevant fact. Yeah, nations have trillions in debt. But they also have trillions income and potential income. It ignores improvements in efficiency. We are much more productive today than we were even just a few years ago.

There is nothing new here. People have been making these doomsday predictions for centuries and they have yet to materialize.

 

When (what year) were promised future benefits 12 times annual GDP with debt growing nearly one trillion per year?

 

So except for getting the direction of fund flows wrong...you were right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Except for a slight altitude miscalculation, pigs can fly.