Today was the day MSNBC located the word debt in the dictionary. Michael Smerconish—who calls himself conservative, but isn’t—was asked by Obamahead David Schuster whether our foreign debtors might call it quits and stop funding the orgy.
Smerconish looked surprised, and said he had no idea, which was honest enough. Then he quickly padded the ego by adding: Let nobody claim he has an idea, or that he foresaw the current crisis.
When you shut serious libertarians (Neal Boortz and Treason Magazine are precluded, naturally) out of the discourse, you are also able to pretend they don’t exist or have not been warning of a meltdown. (And then steal their insights to present to mainstream when the time is ripe.)
This column was warning in 2003, if not earlier, of the consequences of endless debt and the dangers of hyperinflation. An example is “Bring ‘Em Home, Mr. Bush”:
“This means we’re into Keynesian deficit spending—the government is borrowing and inflating the money supply to fund its profligacy, a practice that will accelerate the depreciation of the dollar, and may even lead to the horror of hyperinflation.”
At the very least, is the ignorant Smerconish not aware of one congressman who ran for president, Ron Paul, and who’s been speaking about the day of reckoning for decades?
Investors may be aware of Peter Schiff’s spot-on predictions. They too go back years.
Smerconish is bright in that gabby, establishment-friendly way, so “speechless” did not look good on him.
Here’s a suggestion: in the future, if MSNBC brings up the topic of debt financing and the future of the dollar, suggest that the Us beg for debt forgiveness. Like a Third World country.
Seriously, when will America pull the plug on these pathetic pundits and seek out those of us who have a record of accurate predictions on the defining issues of the day?
“Suppose your doctor misdiagnoses your condition – he tells you that six months hence you’ll be stone-cold dead, pushing up the daisies. As it turns out, however, you did not have leukemia after all, but were only suffering from Lyme disease. Would you not consider switching practitioners?
Say your stockbroker’s picks leave you with a portfolio more volatile than Vesuvius and an eviscerated bank account. Short of buying shares in a Baghdad bed and breakfast, he did everything wrong. Would you still entrust him with your money?
Imagine you’re a fisherman. Your local weatherman predicts calm, but you lose your boat in treacherous seas. (Thankfully your life is spared.) Then he forecasts a storm, but the sea is as calm as glass, and you miss out on the biggest catch ever. How long before you stop trusting his “expertise”?
These analogies came to mind as I listened to a different sort of failed “expert,” for whom public goodwill runs eternal.”