Hacker News Reader

Comment by richardknop | Hacker News Reader

Peter Schiff predicted the housing bubble. He also claims that the current housing bubble is even bigger as the market imbalances have not been fixed (government interference and bailouts intervened in the natural free market process, if left to free market forces there would be a lot more failed banks).

He's also a gold bug. Other than housing bubble he claims there is a massive bubble in stock market and also that the next crisis will be a currency crisis as people lose confidence in US dollar.

He would probably suggest to invest in gold and in markets outside of US/EU.

Disclaimer: I am not saying I agree with Peter Schiff just describing his view, so please don't down vote me.

View on HN

Peter Schiff is always predicting a crash, his call on the housing bubble is more of a stopped clock type scenario.

> Peter Schiff is always predicting a crash, his call on the housing bubble is more of a stopped clock type scenario

You're absolutely correct that he sounds like an inevitable broken clock outcome. However, his premise on why and how the last bubble was going to explode, was extremely well supported by argumentation & data. He didn't just say it, he argued it out and supported the premise, and he was right. It wasn't luck, it made perfect sense, and he wasn't the only person using the same argument details.

He's right this time that they've blown another huge bubble in asset values via cheap money / hyper low interest rates. The Fed has finally gotten to the point where they're openly admitting to that (Yellen just did so recently). This is the third time in 20 years they've generated vast asset bubbles with cheap money. Schiff is wrong on the timing because he has persistently underestimated how long the Fed could keep the bubbles inflated via said cheap money.

Raise interest rates just to the average level of the prior 50 years, and see what happens to the housing market.

For cases like this, it's probably more important to look at what the predictions were, rather than when. We accept that it's impossible to time markets... Well, that applies to both bulls and bears. I'm not familiar with Peter Schiff at all, but if he was calling the correct failure then, it's worth considering that he's calling the correct failure now.

Yes, I mean recessions / booms are cyclical so he is likely to be right again in the future when the next recession comes because he's been consistently predicting economic doom every year.

Why are people down voting me. I didn't say I agree with Peter Schiff just that he is one of the people who predicted the housing bubble and other bubbles he's been predicting every year since then.

In what fantasy does the US Dollar collapse, and our society is still stable enough to trade in something like gold? I'd invest in agricultural and blacksmithing skills if you're really worried about that.

It doesn't need to collapse suddenly. But be replaced by Yuan or more likely basket of currencies as a step by step process.

Every time I try to imagine that "peaceful" transition or something similar, I just see mushroom clouds.

I am not sure. Mushroom clouds would end in a total world economy collapse probably so it's not in the interest of US to go that route just because the world will become multi polar rather than the current model with a single superpower (This process is already well underway and I don't see how it can be stopped).

Yes US will end up losing some of advantages but it doesn't need to be so dramatic. Even in multi polar world with several super powers US will be one of wealthiest and most prosperous countries. The tremendous wealth accumulated over last century is not going anyway.

> The tremendous wealth accumulated over last century is not going anyway.

Wealth follows the wealthy, and most of the wealth in the US rests in very few hands, much of it offshore and in other ways hidden from taxation. If they leave, the "wealth" leaves with them for the most part.

But wealth is not just money. Infrastructure, industrial base, technology sector and military / space exploration complex, domain knowledge (just think about how hard it would be for a new upcoming power to replicate the deep knowledge of all the people working for something like NASA), highly educated population with valuable skills (tech, finance, science), real estate (houses and flats in US are bigger than rest of the world).

For another nation to get to the level of US it would need all of these things and it would take decades and massive investment to build up all of this. Few very rich people taking their money and leaving for some other country would not be the end of the world.

Our infrastructure is crumbling, tech is being exported and offshored, space is in tatters, and the latest from the military is an incredibly expensive jet it still won't work, and incredibly expensive boat they just don't want.

> Wealth follows the wealthy, and most of the wealth in the US rests in very few hands, much of it offshore and in other ways hidden from taxation. If they leave, the "wealth" leaves with them for the most part.

All true enough, but I'm not convinced the wealthy would leave the US en masse as it gradually declines in power and we enter a more multi-polar world, with the dollar possibly losing reserve status at some point. Where would they go, China? I think in the scenario where the US is less powerful compared to the rest of the world, it's still a very attractive place to live in many ways (edit: especially for Americans).

It could be an attractive place to live, if populism doesn't rule the day for too long, and we do actually bother to invest in some infrastructure. Without that, it could very rapidly become a singularly ugly place to live. Meanwhile if you're rich enough, maybe Switzerland starts to look more stable and appealing in the long run. You can still travel to wherever you like, but your wealth would be elsewhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com