Posted on 10/31/2013 8:19:13 PM PDT by 4rcane
Janet Yellen Exposed --The Truth Behind the Myth, Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfLlF1vtit8
Schiff explains Yellen downplayed the housing bubble, and Schiff goes over the exact speeches everyone else is using to portray she as forecasting the bubble.
(my paraphrasing as I listen)
“she just says there ‘s concerns out there”
“she is posting a question...not stating something”
“higher then normal prices does not prove there is a bubble”
“to validate the reason why there isn’t a bubble”
“she says flat out she’s not making any predictions”
“housing prices is something to consider”
Thanks for posting.
Pretty much confirmed what I thought about her. I’ll spread it around to my ‘posse’
continued on the paraphrasing:
“all she really did is downplay the risk”
“does this sound like someone trying to warn”
“she’s very optimistic”
“she is forecasting the possibility”
“she saying maybe home prices won’t go up so fast”
“the wealth effect on spending”
“house prices could surprise us in either direction”
“if it slows much faster or reverses”
“house prices may go up faster
“how could she be warning about a bubble if she thought the prices were going up”
sept 2006
“the speed of the falloff and decline of house prices have surprised us”
“housing is a relatively small sector of the economy”
2010
“did not see any of that coming until it happened”
Continue
“Media still going with the story Yellen as forecasting the bubble and going with it as if it were the truth.”
“Keynesian and inflationist, repeat the mistake until...”
“the only one happy is going to be Ben Bernacke, because he won’t go down as the worst”
A little background;
Housing Speculation is More Rampant Than You Think
by Peter Schiff, Euro Pacific Capital. July 5, 2005
http://www.financialsensearchive.com/fsu/editorials/schiff/2005/0705.html
However, the mere fact that owners occupy their houses as principle residences does not necessarily remove such properties from the category of speculative investments. For example, 58% of recent California homebuyers financed their purchases using ARMs (with percentages in pricier counties exceeding 80%). The primary reason given to justify such mortgages was owners’ intentions to resell the properties in relatively short periods of time. Such buying is clearly speculative, regardless of the speculator’s intention to occupy the property. Given high transaction costs and low relative rents available in markets where such mortgages are most pervasive, absent the expectation of rapid price appreciation, such short-term buyers would clearly be better off renting.
Also, the fact that so many buyers are using interest-only, or negative-amortization mortgages, suggests even greater degrees of speculation. Since none of the monthly payments on such loans reduce the principal of the mortgages, buyers utilizing them are no better off than renters. However, since they must also pay property taxes and maintenance, interest only buyers actually get the worst of both worlds. They rent property from lenders, yet get stuck with all the headaches associated with ownership. The only way interest-only buyers build equity is though price appreciation. In other words, they are the ultimate speculators.
Thank you, leave it to Free Republic to beat the press, again.
David Stockman in his latest book “The Great Deformation” has nothing good to say about Yellen. She is a Marxist inflationist, perfectly in sync with Obama and his plans to sink the economy and the country. She is all about printing money on steroids. (Where do these assh***s come from anyway?)
Stockman’s book is a tour de force. It is nothing less than a resume for the job of Fed Chairman.
Stockman is a grownup who doesn’t believe in Santa Claus. Washington’s corridors of power are largely inhabited children can do no other than persist in the audacity of hope and nonsensical economic models. Of course, there are also a few cynical demagogues who know full well what they are doing as they exploit the foolishness of voters and colleagues. As Stockman explains, both parties are guilty of childish nonsense and demagoguery.
Can you give us some idea why this is relevant?
Ping! Thought you’d like to see this one.
Thanks, at the end of Schiff’s video he has Obama introducing Yellen and he is saying the line about her forecasting the housing bubble, I’m thinking it’s the Confidence Trick, all the media has to do is compare Schiff 2005 to Yellen 2005, and they won’t they are shilling instead;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick
Confidence tricks exploit typical human characteristics such as greed, dishonesty, vanity, opportunism, lust, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, desperation, and naïvety. As such, there is no consistent profile of a confidence trick victim;
the common factor is simply that the victim relies on the good faith of the con artist.
Victims of investment scams tend to show an incautious level of greed and gullibility, and many con artists target the elderly, but even alert and educated people may be taken in by other forms of confidence trick.
Accomplices, also known as shills, help manipulate the mark into accepting the perpetrator’s plan. In a traditional confidence trick, the mark is led to believe that he will be able to win money or some other prize by doing some task.
Washington’s corridors of power are largely inhabited by low information lawmakers (Democrats) who vote for laws they have not read, who mindlessly support laws that are unworkable, and who persist in the audacity of hope and nonsensical economic models.
They know nothing more than name calling, character assassination, blaming you, and skipping disagreeable things like fiscal responsibility because they can borrow, print money, and raise taxes.
You’re right! My post should have read:
“...largely inhabited by spoiled children...”
Janet Yellen is Obama’s pick to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
She is a Keynesian purist, the sort who thinks that nonsense like Cash for Clunkers is good economics. She has also advocated for higher inflation and negative interest rates as means to improve the economy. If you believe in Keynes, big government, and central economic planning, this all makes sense. If you believe in individual liberty, her appointment is very bad news. How bad, you ask? Well, she’s so bad that Clinton SecTreas Summers would have been a better pick.
The other day as I watched the Sebilius testimony I was thinking, 'I'd love to see Peter Schiff have a go at Sebilius'. I would pay to watch him make her eye twitch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.