Replies

One of the favorite arguments used to slime Ron Paul and Schiff is that they are perpetual doom and gloom mongers and that predicting a crash five or even two years ago doesn't count on the basis that if you're always predicting gloom sooner or later you're going to be right.

Well I don't know about that but it sure counts more than the opinions of Laffer and a number of Freepers who until September, were scoffing at and pouring scorn on anyone who suggested the US was in serious trouble. Some still are. Furthermore, this crash has been a long time in coming so I'm inclined to believe that a two year old prediction of crisis does indeed have validity. One thing I've noticed though, is that Paul's correct forecast of this crisis has earned him more, not less abuse. Strange.

Paul is not a "made for the media" construct. He reminds me of an old college professor who would show up late for class with his shirt done up on the wrong buttons and his hair in a mess. He looks kooky but he has it right, though.

The spiraling multi-trillion bailout costs + the cost of the Iraq war + our foreign energy dependence + the loss of our manufacturing base = financial ruin.

One of the favorite arguments used to slime Ron Paul and Schiff is that they are perpetual doom and gloom mongers and that predicting a crash five or even two years ago doesn't count on the basis that if you're always predicting gloom sooner or later you're going to be right.

The reason that's not a valid argument is because they weren't merely predicting a downturn. The predicted the exact causes and effects correctly, and in Schiff's case he even got the approximate time correct.

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arEE1iClqDrk&refer=home

The money that’s been pledged is equivalent to $24,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. It’s nine times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional Budget Office figures. It could pay off more than half the country’s mortgages.