Schiff's Sad, Sound, Song

Debt,Federal Reserve Bank,Inflation,Political Economy

The only thing you want to take away from this condescending Time magazine “piece” about libertarian financial analyst Peter Schiff’s prognostications is this:

“over longer periods, Schiff’s decade-old strategy of steering clients out of U.S. securities and into commodities and overseas stocks has been a big winner. His investment record surely can’t be the reason for his fall from media grace.”

Much to the consternation of the Times “writer,” the reason Schiff “hasn’t changed his tune” on the imperative of escaping the phony US economy is because the tune is in the right key!.

Justin Fox’s column is so pointless, so full of non sequiturs. This guys doesn’t even attempt to make sense, and I imagine he gets a bundle for the epistolary offal he produces.

I mean, on the one hand, Fox concedes that Schiff’s investments have proven prudent. But on the other hand, he insists that Schiff got to bask only briefly “in the glory of his spectacular call,” because he has fallen out of grace with the menagerie of morons on mainstream media.

As though you “bask in the glory of [your] spectacular call” only so long as you’re invited on the Keynesian “Kudlow and Cretins” show. Perhaps saving your clients a bundle and safeguarding your own assets is enough to make an honest man “bask.”

5 thoughts on “Schiff's Sad, Sound, Song

  1. Myron Pauli

    Even the headline is wrong in that it is not Schiff’s “bad news” but the bad news caused by the statists. Schiff does not run things – he is just calling out the man-made (or FED-made) disasters.

  2. JP Strauss

    I always want to say something meaningful in a comment, but your writings are usually so well-rounded that I can only come as far as “how can sane people be so stupid?”. Seriously, since when is being scientifically correct labeled as incorrect because it is contrary to popular belief? I can understand why there can be debate on free market Capitalism vs Socialism, but seriously, if your advice makes people money and is scientifically sound, how can someone reject or ridicule it? And why do the majority of our people simply nod in agreement?

  3. Virgil

    Imagine what a puff-piece this would have been had the subject been that Keynesian windbag Paul Krugman. (By the way, I would encourage everyone to read Bill Anderson’s regular deconstructions of Krugman’s columns on the Lewrockwell.com blog using little more then common sense.) Figures like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul have been voices crying out in the wilderness for quite some time now, only to be ignored or scoffed at by the political\economic establishment. It would seem that you have to consistently wrong about everything in order to be taken seriously in the beltway or the media (its worked for Bill Kristol all these years). I guess it is true, no prophet is accepted by his own people.

  4. Virgil

    I came across an interesting quote by the great Renaissance philosopher Desiderius Erasmus: “The more ignorant, reckless and thoughtless a doctor is, the higher his reputation soars even amongst powerful princes.” Change the word doctor to economist and he’d be spot on.

  5. Bob Harrison

    Unless I’m mistaken, the basis of much of Schiff’s investment strategy as well as many libertarian and sound-money advocates is to bet against the State. Knowing that the government will destroy its fiat currency, these wise few invest in gold (a barbaric relic!) and commodities and other inflation hedges. With that said, its impossible for the ministry of propaganda (our free media) to take Schiff or any anti-fed thought criminals seriously even though they’re proven right more often than not!

Comments are closed.