Peter Schiff 'Before Obama Leaves Office' Prediction

[toathis]

[William Tell]

Every single thread you have ever posted is Schiff bashing.

[dannno]

Every single thread you have ever posted is Schiff bashing.

lol, you know the OP has been waiting months to make this post.. probably started jacking it like a month ago but wouldn't let himself go over the edge until after the inauguration and he was finally able to put it up on the internet. Dude's probably sitting in several cups of batter right about now.

[silverhandorder]

Lol go f your self op. All your snowflake spaces belong to us.

[FSP-Rebel]

With over 95 million working age people currently out of the labor market, Schiff was right in that the real unemployment rate would be (is) north of 20%.

[Zippyjuan]

With over 95 million working age people currently out of the labor market, Schiff was right in that the real unemployment rate would be (is) north of 20%.

If you consider retired people unemployed. BLS only counts you if you don't have a job and are interested in finding one. Just to replace retiring workers you need 3.5 million more people to get a job every year.

[angelatc]

If you consider retired people unemployed. BLS only counts you if you don't have a job and are interested in finding one. Just to replace retiring workers you need 3.5 million more people to get a job every year.

Whatver. I remember an economy so good that women were leaving the workforce to stay home with their families. Now there is record employment with so many jobs a lot of us now have 2 or 3!

[Dr.No.]

With over 95 million working age people currently out of the labor market, Schiff was right in that the real unemployment rate would be (is) north of 20%.

Using that methodology, the unemployment rate has never been south of ~20%. Using the same unemployment number they have used for 20 years, it is sub 5%.

Now, you can argue that there are greater numbers of underemployed, discouraged workers other there. If you also include in underemployed workers (to their degree of underemployment), you come in at nearly 8% unemployment.

Net worth has nearly doubled under Obama. Total household debt is at 2008 levels. Net financial assets held by the economy are up like 40% under Obama. The stock market is doing very well. Almost the same number of government employees in 2008 as there are now (Clinton is pretty much the only president in the last 50 years to have shrunk the number in any significant manner). Incredibly low inflation.

Of course there are problems. Corporate debt is quite high (likely due to the low interest rates), student loan debt is high, Obamacare has done almost nothing to reduce healthcare costs, real income is only up about 1%/year under Obama (1.25%/year under Reagan and Clinton).

But if you just look at the raw numbers...think about it if the shoe were on the other foot. If Ron Paul had delivered those numbers, I think many on this website would make effusive comments towards him, and would probably try and justify the bad numbers in some way. All I am asking for is take the good numbers positively, and the bad numbers negatively, regardless of who is "in charge".

[Madison320]

The economy is great and we only had to borrow 10 trillion, print 3.5 trillion and keep rates at 0% to get there. But don't worry, debt, printing and 0% rates have no consequences according to certain people in this forum.

When the stuff hits the fan, here's what I want to know. Will the people that claim "debt doesn't matter" admit they were wrong? Or will they say everything was great, therefore it must be Trump's fault?

[specsaregood]

The economy is great and we only had to borrow 10 trillion, print 3.5 trillion and keep rates at 0% to get there. But don't worry, debt, printing and 0% rates have no consequences according to certain people in this forum.

When the stuff hits the fan, here's what I want to know. Will the people that claim "debt doesn't matter" admit they were wrong? Or will they say everything was great, therefore it must be Trump's fault?

What was it that the "revised" numbers the department of education just released showed?

According to an analysis of the revised data, at more than 1,000 colleges and trade schools, or about a quarter of the total, at least half the students had defaulted or failed to pay down at least $1 on their debt within seven years.

Oh yeah, that. Yeah, things are all hunky dory out there.

[Dr.No.]

The economy is great and we only had to borrow 10 trillion, print 3.5 trillion and keep rates at 0% to get there. But don't worry, debt, printing and 0% rates have no consequences according to certain people in this forum.

When the stuff hits the fan, here's what I want to know. Will the people that claim "debt doesn't matter" admit they were wrong? Or will they say everything was great, therefore it must be Trump's fault?

How about you hold yourself to the same standard? Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, Robert Murphy, Rand Paul...their predictions over the past decade or so have been horrible. Horrible. Ron Paul's predictions of default, hyperinflation, high interest rates, soaring metal prices, DJI of 4,000, etc. have not at all come to pass. Presumably, you believed in those predictions. Where are they, or you, admitting that they were wrong?

Of course debt matters in that if you print too much, you can get inflation. But the fears of hyperinflation, and the fears of default, are nonsense. I will readily admit it when $#@! hits the fan.

Because it is Trump, I will add the disclaimer that $#@! could hit the fan in other ways...he could start WWIII, cause a nuclear weapon to hit the US, etc. Heck, he could order the US to default. And there are always things that could destabilize a country and cause inflation due to a supply crunch (aforementioned wars, natural disaster, plagues). But the idea that the US will go bankrupt or that there will be hyperinflation from the monetary sides of things, that loan creation is going to skyrocket, etc. is silly.

[devil21]

Schiff was early. The bankers are putting the collapse onto Donald's administration instead of tarnishing Obama's. Donald will be pissing on our legs and telling us it's raining while his Goldman team turns the FRN into dust, as planned. Then they can blame it on the "populist voters" for causing such economic problems and naturally that means voting should be done away with. Hope you all are stocking up on hard assets.

[devil21]

How about you hold yourself to the same standard? Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, Robert Murphy, Rand Paul...their predictions over the past decade or so have been horrible. Horrible. Ron Paul's predictions of default, hyperinflation, high interest rates, soaring metal prices, DJI of 4,000, etc. have not at all come to pass. Presumably, you believed in those predictions. Where are they, or you, admitting that they were wrong?

Default already occurred. This is the END of a bankruptcy. Hyperinflation has already occurred by austrian standards. Do you think dumping offshore trillions back into the economy suddenly will have no impact on keynesian price inflation? Interest rates are rising and will have to rise faster and faster to soak up as much of those trillions as possible. Metal prices are manipulated and that's been proven and not debatable. Has the timing been wrong? Yes. That does NOT mean the predictions are wrong.

Of course debt matters in that if you print too much, you can get inflation. But the fears of hyperinflation, and the fears of default, are nonsense. I will readily admit it when $#@! hits the fan.

No you won't. You will be nowhere to be found on RPF when SHTF. No offense but if you don't understand that the US has been in default since 1933 then you still don't know half of the story.

Because it is Trump, I will add the disclaimer that $#@! could hit the fan in other ways...he could start WWIII, cause a nuclear weapon to hit the US, etc. Heck, he could order the US to default. And there are always things that could destabilize a country and cause inflation due to a supply crunch (aforementioned wars, natural disaster, plagues). But the idea that the US will go bankrupt or that there will be hyperinflation from the monetary sides of things, that loan creation is going to skyrocket, etc. is silly.

We shall see. But I don't expect to see you back when it happens. We'll all probably be cut off from the net at that time any way. All we can hope for is that the pain of the unwind is relatively brief.

[Dr.No.]

Default already occurred. This is the END of a bankruptcy. Hyperinflation has already occurred by austrian standards. Do you think dumping offshore trillions back into the economy suddenly will have no impact on keynesian price inflation? Interest rates are rising and will have to rise faster and faster to soak up as much of those trillions as possible. Metal prices are manipulated and that's been proven and not debatable. Has the timing been wrong? Yes. That does NOT mean the predictions are wrong.

Ron Paul did not say hyperinflation would occur by Austrian standards (which is in itself a nonsense statement...you can say anything happens by any standard using that logic). He and others said that there would be very REAL inflation. This is because he and others do not understand the banking system. They are stuck in reserve/loanable funds theory, because they approach everything from an ideological standpoint, not a scientific or data-driven one. Hell, I worked for RP in 2012, and I can say this is true.

Fundamentally, if Trump's policies cause more money to come in from offshore, that alone would cause very little inflation. Companies, banks, etc. are not money-limited. As long as they have good credit, they will have access to all the funds they need. The fact that an asset (which they would use to back up any loans they make) is now at home vs. offshore shouldn't have much effect on their future spending.

Lower taxes might marginally influence their long-term investment plans. And lower regulations would definitely spur new money creation as the private sector is spurred to start new investment. But that new investment would be met by new goods being provided, resulting in net no inflation. After all, the economy is like at 78% capacity right now, so new money creation should involve tapping into that extra 22%.

Timing is almost everything. Or, you just get broken/stuck clock syndrome. Ron Paul has been predicting doom and gloom since 1979 (and if there were records going back further, I am sure even before then). Peter and Paul Schiff have been saying the same since the 80s.

[devil21]

Ron Paul did not say hyperinflation would occur by Austrian standards (which is in itself a nonsense statement...you can say anything happens by any standard using that logic).

Austrian definition of inflation is increase in money supply. Keynesian definition is price inflation. You didn't know that? The dollar has been hyperinflated by Austrian standards. It hasn't been YET allowed to reflect as price inflation since it hasn't been allowed into the economy. That is going to change shortly.

He and others said that there would be very REAL inflation.

Not only has Trump already tried to put a smiley face on the coming keynesian price inflation but the Fed has been warning for months that price inflation is coming. You don't read the Fed statements, do you?

This is because he and others do not understand the banking system. They are stuck in reserve/loanable funds theory, because they approach everything from an ideological standpoint, not a scientific or data-driven one. Hell, I worked for RP in 2012, and I can say this is true.

Wow, you really said RP doesn't understand the banking system but you do? Ooook.

Fundamentally, if Trump's policies cause more money to come in from offshore, that alone would cause very little inflation. Companies, banks, etc. are not money-limited. As long as they have good credit, they will have access to all the funds they need. The fact that an asset (which they would use to back up any loans they make) is now at home vs. offshore shouldn't have much effect on their future spending.

What, then, is the point of repatriating foreign held funds if the corps don't intend to spend them? Once you understand that this is the end of the debt-based FRN system, you'll understand better why they are bringing it back. It's to spend it while it's still worth something! The end of the bankruptcy means the end of the FRN, since the FRN was based entirely on the bankruptcy of 1933, which is ending.

Lower taxes might marginally influence their long-term investment plans. And lower regulations would definitely spur new money creation as the private sector is spurred to start new investment. But that new investment would be met by new goods being provided, resulting in net no inflation. After all, the economy is like at 78% capacity right now, so new money creation should involve tapping into that extra 22%.

Keynesian word salad. "Might", "at like", "capacity", etc. Again, no offense but if you didn't know that this is the end of a long bankruptcy then your fundamental understanding of how the economy has functioned doesn't lead to much faith in your opinions. Spend more time studying history then you'll have a clearer picture.

Timing is almost everything. Or, you just get broken/stuck clock syndrome. Ron Paul has been predicting doom and gloom since 1979 (and if there were records going back further, I am sure even before then). Peter and Paul Schiff have been saying the same since the 80s.

Hmm....gold prices from 1979 till now? Even with serious manipulation? What they've been saying is coming to fruition now. Timing only matters if you're playing it like a casino instead of preparing for the inevitable end of the debt currency cycle.

[Dr.No.]

Austrian definition of inflation is increase in money supply. Keynesian definition is price inflation. You didn't know that? The dollar has been hyperinflated by Austrian standards. It hasn't been YET allowed to reflect as price inflation since it hasn't been allowed into the economy. That is going to change shortly.

And the flvorkian definition of inflation is the size of the icebergs. What the definition is to a certain branch of economics is completely irrelevant. Austrians believe that inflation is a monetary phenomenon, and that there should be an increase in the price level with monetary inflation. That hasn't happened.

The statement "allowed into the economy" is telling. It is the idea that the money supply and the price level have some tight connection, but they don't. Banks don't loan out reserves (the money supply), they create them out of thin air.

Not only has Trump already tried to put a smiley face on the coming keynesian price inflation but the Fed has been warning for months that price inflation is coming. You don't read the Fed statements, do you?

Do you read the Fed statements? The Fed has warned of higher inflation as they are planning on increasing interest rates. That will increase inflation as it increases costs throughout the economy. They'e also warned of higher inflation since they believe we might see a wider fiscal deficit. However, they have not at all warned of hyperinflation?

Wow, you really said RP doesn't understand the banking system but you do? Ooook.

That isn't a defense. Ron Paul does not understand the banking system; that is why his predictions have not come true. He lives in a gold-standard world, with a convertible currency and a fixed exchange rate. The dollar is a nonconvertible currency on a floating exchange rate.

What, then, is the point of repatriating foreign held funds if the corps don't intend to spend them?

That may be the intention, but that isn't what happened. We have data on this. When you give corporations tax relief, it results in a slightly higher stock market and slightly less inflation, though the effect is so marginal that other impacts can easily wipe it out. US corporations have about 2 trillion overseas. Granted, if they bring that all back at once that would be greater than any historical tax benefit, but over time (say 4/5 years), it would be very comparable. Moreover, the vast majority of the US economy is debt financed. Companies use their real assets as a collateral, and borrow to finance investment. Real funds are generally used in acquisitions (to offset higher finance costs), dividend payouts, and stock buybacks. While tax relief would make those overseas funds more valuable, it wouldn't change their assets to a significant degree. Moreover, corporations are already sitting on a few trillion dollars in domestic profit. Yet, they still haven't made too many investments, preferring to give out dividends and buy out stock. Companies and individuals do not make investments because they have access to funds. They do so because they see opportunity.

Once you understand that this is the end of the debt-based FRN system, you'll understand better why they are bringing it back. It's to spend it while it's still worth something! The end of the bankruptcy means the end of the FRN, since the FRN was based entirely on the bankruptcy of 1933, which is ending.

Explain to me how the FRN will be devalued.

Keynesian word salad. "Might", "at like", "capacity", etc. Again, no offense but if you didn't know that this is the end of a long bankruptcy then your fundamental understanding of how the economy has functioned doesn't lead to much faith in your opinions. Spend more time studying history then you'll have a clearer picture.

Appeal to ignorance and attacking the person all in one, huh?

Hmm....gold prices from 1979 till now? Even with serious manipulation? What they've been saying is coming to fruition now. Timing only matters if you're playing it like a casino instead of preparing for the inevitable end of the debt currency cycle.

They have cried about bread lines, currency crises, US default, rocket-high interest rates, and yes, hyperinflation. Ron Paul in the early 80s thought the end was coming when inflation was briefly high.

Also, is the price of gold is the end-all be all of inflation? Why then, from 1980 to 2005, was price of gold was basically flat (fluctuating between 200 and 400ish)? I mean, there was intense monetary inflation during that time. Huge government deficits, etc. But the price of gold really didn't soar...why? It takes 20+ years to work through the system (higher prices in 2006)? Does the fact that around that time, China and India started buying more gold, not change your interpretation of the rising price? Heck, I generally think that the price of gold has gone up because people think it is a hedge against catastrophe, and post financial-crises, people are very scared. The fact that it isn't at 2,000, to me, is people realizing their fears of hyperinflation and bread lines was idiotic. If you didn't have fearmongerers like Schiff and Alex Jones screaming about gold, it'd be even lower.

[AZJoe]

How about you hold yourself to the same standard? Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, Robert Murphy, Rand Paul...their predictions over the past decade or so have been horrible. Horrible. Ron Paul's predictions of default, hyperinflation, high interest rates, soaring metal prices, DJI of 4,000, etc. have not at all come to pass. Presumably, you believed in those predictions. Where are they, or you, admitting that they were wrong?

Huh? Looks like we have another irrational Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney style Keynesian faith cultist. Paul & Co. have been eerily spot on in their economic predictions. National debt doubling rate now only eight years, spending, fed balance sheets, manipulation of interest rates, reduction in labor force participation rate, shifting from full-time to part time career force, and on and on. Suppression of interest rates, central bank mechanism, manipulation statistics and definitions provide temporary stop-gaps and suppressions of truth. Yet, it is still simply mathematics and logic. Reserve currency status has also allowed can kicking to extend much longer than other nations could have gotten away with. Paul, Woods, Murphy have not predicted dates or timings for breaking points. Specific timing of breaking points no one can accurately predict. However, the direction, the path, are all accurate.

[angelatc]

Of course there are problems. Corporate debt is quite high (likely due to the low interest rates), student loan debt is high, Obamacare has done almost nothing to reduce healthcare costs, real income is only up about 1%/year under Obama (1.25%/year under Reagan and Clinton).

But if you just look at the raw numbers...think about it if the shoe were on the other foot. If Ron Paul had delivered those numbers,

That would never have happened.

[angelatc]

Lower taxes might marginally influence their long-term investment plans. .....

Bond markets, insurance policies, and fixed income investments are not marginal.

[AZJoe]

Net worth has nearly doubled under Obama. Total household debt is at 2008 levels. Net financial assets held by the economy are up like 40% under Obama. The stock market is doing very well. Almost the same number of government employees in 2008 as there are now (Clinton is pretty much the only president in the last 50 years to have shrunk the number in any significant manner). Incredibly low inflation.

The drive to try to glorify the Obama period is blinding No from reality.

The stock market correlates very closely now with fed policy. It is artificially pumped up. During the past eight years, the billionaire class, the political glass, and government service class have done well. Yet the ordinary people are doing worse. Even despite such efforts to pump up certain assets class and like keeping the stock market hyped, median real household income has fallen as well as median net worth while consumer credit is rising.









http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014...an-under-bush/

[AZJoe]

Using that methodology, the unemployment rate has never been south of ~20%. Using the same unemployment number they have used for 20 years, it is sub 5%.

Now, you can argue that there are greater numbers of underemployed, discouraged workers other there. If you also include in underemployed workers (to their degree of underemployment), you come in at nearly 8% unemployment.

This is incorrect. Using the methodologies such as shadowstats, the unemployment rate is indeed above 20%, and no it has NOT always been above 20% using such methodologies.

Also keep in mind the unemployment calculation measures do not capture the shifting of workforce from higher pay full-time employment to lower part job or temporary positions that is occurring.

Further, the BLS for political convenience simply defines out of official existence the long term unemployed, workers who get discouraged, or no longer report that they are seeking employment, despite being unemployed.

John Williams explains this manipulation well:

"What removes headline-unemployment reporting from common experience and broad, underlying economic reality, simply is definitional. To be counted among the U.S. government’s headline unemployed (U.3), an individual has to have looked actively for work within the four weeks prior to the unemployment survey conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistic (BLS). If the active search for work was in the last year, but not in the last four weeks, the individual is considered a “discouraged worker” by the BLS, and not counted in the headline labor force.”

Those giving up looking for work are redefined out of headline reporting and the labor force, as discouraged workers. The declines in the headline unemployment rate often reflect that, as opposed to unemployed individuals finding new and gainful employment.” http://www.shadowstats.com/article/c810x.pdf

[Zippyjuan]

Should we count people who have not looked for a job in a year as unemployed (Shadowstats does)? Do they really want one? BLS counts you only if you are looking for a job.

They do track "discouraged workers". In their latest report, "discouraged workers" totaled just 426,000 (December 2016). Not enough to quadruple the unemployment rate (as ShadowStats claims). https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm

Discouraged workers

Discouraged workers are a subset of persons marginally attached to the labor force. The marginally attached are those persons not in the labor force who want and are available for work, and who have looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months, but were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Among the marginally attached, discouraged workers were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them or there were none for which they would qualify.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm

They also list 95.8 million as "not in the labor force" with only 5.4 million of those saying they actually want a job. Again, not enough to quadruple the unemployment rate. Shadowstats adds some unexplained "fudge factor" to their figures.

[Dr.No.]

Huh? Looks like we have another irrational Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney style Keynesian faith cultist. Paul & Co. have been eerily spot on in their economic predictions. National debt doubling rate now only eight years, spending, fed balance sheets, manipulation of interest rates, reduction in labor force participation rate, shifting form full-time to part time career force, and on and on. Suppression of interest rates, central bank mechanism, manipulation statistics and definitions provide temporary stop-gaps and suppressions of truth. Yet, it is still simply mathematics and logic. Reserve currency status has also allowed can kicking to extend much longer than other nations could have gotten away with. Paul, Woods, Murphy have not predicted dates or timings for breaking points. Specific timing of breaking points no one can accurately predict. However, the direction, the path, all accurate.

Revisionism at its finest. Ron Paul and Co. were predicting default, hyperinflation, dollar collapse, high interest rates, etc. The reduction in labor force participation has been predicted since 1998 due to an aging workforce. Ron Paul predicted a 15 year major depression, that it would no longer be the world's reserve currency, that oil prices would be huge. He predicted in 2009 that we would have a world government with a new monetary currency by now. He has predicted that the economy would collapse every year since the 70s. His predictions about QE have been proven entirely wrong.

Vs net assets:


It is OK to have more credit as long as your assets are going up.

This is incorrect. Using the methodologies such as shadowstats, the unemployment rate is indeed above 20%, and no it has NOT always been above 20% using such methodologies.

Also keep in mind the unemployment calculation measures do not capture the shifting of workforce from higher pay full-time employment to lower part job or temporary positions that is occurring.

Further, the BLS for political convenience simply defines out of official existence the long term unemployed, workers who get discouraged, or no longer report that they are seeking employment, despite being unemployed.

Shadowstats is fake. There is no calculation or anything. He just adds a fudge factor to fit his narrative bias. From his own mouth regarding CPI numbers:

"I’m not going back and recalculating the CPI. All I’m doing is going back to the government’s estimates of what the effect would be and using that as an ad factor to the reported statistics."

This article does a great job slapping his data around:
https://azizonomics.com/2013/06/01/t...h-shadowstats/

Another fantastic take down:
http://www.economonitor.com/dolaneco...by-economists/

Shadowstats is in the business of getting subscribers. He does that by attracting anti-government, paranoid loons. That is contingent on telling them what they want to hear, not the truth.

[Dr.No.]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014...an-under-bush/

I didn't realize Obama's presidency ended in 2013.

Here is household income:



It is up in Obama's term, even considering the mess he had inherited when he joined office.

The graph you mentioned is from the Stanford Pfeffer study, which didn't include stock market/401K holdings in its calculations of net worth.

[Zippyjuan]

Austrian definition of inflation is increase in money supply. Keynesian definition is price inflation. You didn't know that? The dollar has been hyperinflated by Austrian standards. It hasn't been YET allowed to reflect as price inflation since it hasn't been allowed into the economy. That is going to change shortly.
.

Hyperinflation is considered to be about 50% a MONTH increases. Has the US money supply been hyperinflated?

Not only has Trump already tried to put a smiley face on the coming keynesian price inflation but the Fed has been warning for months that price inflation is coming. You don't read the Fed statements, do you?

Have you read their latest statements? They don't forecast high price inflation. 2% is their target rate for inflation- not a high rate.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newse.../20161214a.htm

The Committee expects that, with gradual adjustments in the stance of monetary policy, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace and labor market conditions will strengthen somewhat further. Inflation is expected to rise to 2 percent over the medium term as the transitory effects of past declines in energy and import prices dissipate and the labor market strengthens further. Near-term risks to the economic outlook appear roughly balanced.

In light of the current shortfall of inflation from 2 percent, the Committee will carefully monitor actual and expected progress toward its inflation goal.

Quotes from their latest (December) meeting.

[devil21]

[QUOTE=Zippyjuan;6402020]Hyperinflation is considered to be about 50% a MONTH increases. Has the US money supply been hyperinflated?



And M3 is? What about secret FOMC operations? And Fed shell company operations that hold things off the official books? Got a chart for those Zip?

Have you read their latest statements? They don't forecast high price inflation. 2% is their target rate for inflation- not a high rate.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newse.../20161214a.htm


Quotes from their latest (December) meeting.

At the same time, since summer statements and minutes they've been warning of impending "inflationary pressures". They like to hedge it as "unforeseen" or "unanticipated" (sort of like how they didn't see the housing bubble- wink wink) but it's been there repeatedly. You have to know how to read the statements, usually full of doublespeak.

[AZJoe]

Shadowstats is fake. There is no calculation or anything. He just adds a fudge factor to fit his narrative bias.

OMG, and yet Dr, No has blind faith in the openly distorted BLS numbers. Shadowstats calculations are at least based on logic.

BLS, by contrast is carefully selected data to bolster the political fortunes of those in power. For instance digging into the BLS reports reveals that the majority of its newly created jobs are in fact low wage or part-time positions. Can you truly say that employment is improving when higher wage jobs and full-time careers are being replaced by low wage jobs and part-time positions.

Plus the recent record setting numbers of Americans that are completely absent by workforce, well in excess of ninety million. These record setting numbers are simply disappeared by definitions from BLS calculations. But hey the numbers are getting better as long as BLS gets to remove the data it does not like, right.

And then of course if you have been unemployed for a year or more, the BLS simply disappears you from the data calculations, whether want work or not, whether you are seeking work or not. They also disappear you from their data if you haven't reported that you actively sought work for four weeks.

And then of course if you had a nice career with a good paying job and lose it, and are forced to work two part-time jobs waiting tables at lower wages with lower benefits to make ends meet, well that's job creation and suppresses the BLS unemployment numbers. So for the BLS that's good news and it means the economy is better. Everything is awesome!

And then there is the BLS seasonal "adjustments" as well as the birth/death of jobs adjustments that are so screwed up they continuously revise their models with virtually every calculation, and always in the direction of making the numbers look better.

And then of course there is that sticky labor force participation that throws a wrnech into the BLS "everything is awesome" charade, and the political elites tell you to ignore and is irrelevant.


But hey, let nothing disturb your blind faith in the cult of political BLS BS, and any facts or logic that might cast a shadow on their "everything is awesome" charade must automatically be fake, right.

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Ed-Mo.../10/id/718500/
http://thelibertarianadvisor.com/201...ployment-rate/
http://www.financialsense.com/contri...ted-statistics



c

[Zippyjuan]

Hyperinflation is considered to be about 50% a MONTH increases. Has the US money supply been hyperinflated?

And M3 is? What about secret FOMC operations? And Fed shell company operations that hold things off the official books? Got a chart for those Zip?


At the same time, since summer statements and minutes they've been warning of impending "inflationary pressures". They like to hedge it as "unforeseen" or "unanticipated" (sort of like how they didn't see the housing bubble- wink wink) but it's been there repeatedly. You have to know how to read the statements, usually full of doublespeak.

What is M3? How does it differ from M2? Has it been undergoing hyperinflation?

M3 is M2 plus:

all other CDs (large time deposits, institutional money market mutual fund balances), deposits of eurodollars and repurchase agreements.

("large" meaning with balances of over $250,000).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

Which of those components is pushing M3 into hyperinflation?

Are large CDs hyperinflating?
Are institutional money market account balances hyperinflating?
Are Eurodollar accounts (accounts abroad denominated in $US) hyperinflating?
What about repurchase agreements?

The Fed no longer tracks M3 saying that for the costs of tabulating and calculating it, it does not give them any significant additional information as far as determining monetary policy. But your friends at Shadowstats try to calculate their own version. Do they see hyperinflation in M3?


http://www.shadowstats.com/charts/mo...e-money-supply

Nope- no "Austrian style" hyperinflation in the United States.

[AZJoe]

Revisionism at its finest. Ron Paul and Co. were predicting default, hyperinflation, dollar collapse, high interest rates, etc. The reduction in labor force participation has been predicted since 1998 due to an aging workforce. Ron Paul predicted a 15 year major depression, that it would no longer be the world's reserve currency, that oil prices would be huge. He predicted in 2009 that we would have a world government with a new monetary currency by now. He has predicted that the economy would collapse every year since the 70s. His predictions about QE have been proven entirely wrong.

Dr. No's attempt attack on Dr. Paul is outright dishonesty. While Dr. Paul has made many predictions about the direction of the economy (all accurate), he has not made predictions of specific dates of events. No one can accurately predict dates, especially with worldwide reserve currency, backed by worldwide military apparatus. He made no such prediction that we would certainly have a world government and world world currency by today. Nor did he predict the economy was supposed to have an economic collapse each and every single year of the past 40+ years.

And on the rest, everything has been accurate. Default is continuously occurring through inflation, and with the "official" debt doubling in only 8 years now, larger defaults in one form or another are inevitable. This is really no prediction, this is simply mathematics. [BTW, the actual debt using GAAP is already multiples higher than the "official" debt].

On inflation, Dr. Paul predicts inflation, but I don't believe he has ever said hyperinflation is guaranteed (although it probably is), but rather we are travelling down the path to an inflationary outcome. And again, he has never assigned specific dates to such economic events. For instance Dr. Paul in some of the strongest of his own words I have heard, "I think the wave of the future is inflation. It's just beginning – to the point that the dollar will be rejected as the reserve currency of the world. If there's a panic out of the dollar you will see the destruction of the dollar rather quickly. The end stages of a currency comes quickly." He continued, "We've seen this in Zimbabwe, Mexico and Central America. Today there's an illusion and false trust in our money."

Likewise the dollar is continuously collapsing through inflation, and will accelerate. But again, no dates are given. Especially considering the dollar world status is unique in history. While there have been prior international reserve use currencies, No other currency has been as widespread and deeply established as a world currency as the US dollar today. Nor has such currency been back by a such a powerful globally reaching military-security-deep state political apparatus as the current establishment. Many factors hinder true free-market evaluation of the currency such as the Petrol-dollar system in the middle east, the destruction/sanctioning/bullying of any nation rejecting dollar use for trade [Iraq/Libya] or any signiianct petrol producing nation that does not cow-tow to the US deep state desires [Syria/Iran]. The path is set. The direction is predictable. The arrival times, however are not predictable.

Interest of course goes hand-in-hand with inflation. While government and the Fed may be able to artificially keep market rates down for a time, and maybe even US debt and Fed set rates artificially low permanently, eventually however market rates will inevitably follow and then lead real inflation when inflation rises. This is not any prescient insight. This again is simple logic.

And of course we have seen massive direct and indirect and covert QE over the past decade. The acknowledged Fed balance sheet has reached an all-time high at an unfathomably massive 4.5 Trillion, a seven fold increase from the prior decade.

False accusations, and willful denials of reality are not convincing arguments. Rather, they suggest some ulterior agenda.

[Zippyjuan]

And then of course if you have been unemployed for a year or more, the BLS simply disappears you from the data calculations, whether want work or not, whether you are seeking work or not. They also disappear you from their data if you haven't reported that you actively sought work for four weeks.

If you are still looking for work- no matter how long you have been out of work or whether or not you were receiving any unemployment benefits- you ARE counted as in the labor force and unemployed (assuming you don't already have a job and are just looking for another one- then you are in the labor force and employed).

For instance digging into the BLS reports reveals that the majority of its newly created jobs are in fact low wage or part-time positions. Can you truly say that employment is improving when higher wage jobs and full-time careers are being replaced by low wage jobs and part-time positions.

At the depths of the recession, 80% of the labor force with a job was working full time (at least 35 hours a week) and 20% were part time. Today almost 82% are full time and 18% part time- the percent of the labor force working part time has gone down and the full timers have increased. That shows more full time jobs than part time ones.


https://www.advisorperspectives.com/...-but-improving



As for wages, yes- new jobs typically do pay lower starting wages than jobs you have been at for a long time and worked to increase your income. A company is not going to pay a new hire the same wages as a veteran (unless there is a large worker shortage in the field).