• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Looming economic collapse

Your post describes one of the things about the information age that I find most interesting. I call it the "I don't know and you don't either" syndrome.

Any day, on any subject from terrorism, to the economy, to the gulf oil spill, to global warming, to any number of topics, one can find opinions from truly qualified experts that are 180 degree opposites of each other. These opinions are all valid due to the expertise that went into formulating them even if some of them will end up being wrong. How is a lay person supposed to determine what is most likely to occur or what the end result of a major event is going to be?

The answer is that it is impossible.

Hogwash. I assume this also means that you buy everything advertised on late-night infomercials, because it's "impossible" to tell whether or not these hucksters are selling junk to gullible people in an attempt to make a quick buck?

Lying snake-oil salesmen are not a product of the information age. If you can't see the similarity between Dr. Magnifico's Marvelous Elixir and Hedgeye's Marvelous Risk Management Advice, look more closely.
 
Hogwash. I assume this also means that you buy everything advertised on late-night infomercials, because it's "impossible" to tell whether or not these hucksters are selling junk to gullible people in an attempt to make a quick buck?

Lying snake-oil salesmen are not a product of the information age. If you can't see the similarity between Dr. Magnifico's Marvelous Elixir and Hedgeye's Marvelous Risk Management Advice, look more closely.


Apparently you were so eager to type "Hogwash" that you couldn't be bothered to read my post. I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about differing opinions by genuine experts on a particular subject.

Do you have a relevant comment to make or is this all you've got?
 
Apparently you were so eager to type "Hogwash" that you couldn't be bothered to read my post. I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about differing opinions by genuine experts on a particular subject.

Do you have a relevant comment to make or is this all you've got?

Yes. I was commenting, relevantly, that your ability to spot "genuine experts" seems weak. Your ability to recognize that qualifications don't mean freedom from bias also seems weak.

E.g., "one can find opinions from truly qualified experts that are 180 degree opposites of each other. These opinions are all valid."

Having expertise is only one aspect of having a valid opinion. And in many cases it's the least relevant, because it's so easy to scrape a "qualified expert" off the bottom of someone's shoe if needed.
 
Your ability to recognize that qualifications don't mean freedom from bias also seems weak.

My post addresses this, but since you didn't read it carefully or didn't understand it, I'm not surprised by this comment.

Yes. I was commenting, relevantly, that your ability to spot "genuine experts" seems weak. Your ability to recognize that qualifications don't mean freedom from bias also seems weak.

Fail.

Please show me a single thing in my post that would lead you to this conclusion? I haven't named any specific expert or even a specific subject. Unless you're a mind reader or you know this about me for some other reason, of course. You certainly couldn't determine this from what I actually wrote.

Maybe someone who is not a pedant with poor reading comprehension will have something interesting to add.
 
My post addresses this, but since you didn't read it carefully or didn't understand it, I'm not surprised by this comment.

Evidently your own reading comprehension isn't up to the task.

Physician, heal thyself.



Fail.

Please show me a single thing in my post that would lead you to this conclusion?

Already done. Hint : it's the part between quotations marks, representing the fact that it's taken directly from your own post.
 
My post addresses this, but since you didn't read it carefully or didn't understand it, I'm not surprised by this comment.

You seem to be missing the point that on this particular issue the genuine experts don’t disagree nearly so much as some “news” outlets would have you believe.
 
You seem to be missing the point that on this particular issue the genuine experts don’t disagree nearly so much as some “news” outlets would have you believe.

I didn't say anything about about news outlets.
 
drkitten, is it realy that hard? Apparently so.

Let's pretend for the sake of argument that we both agree that the experts being asked for their opinion are qualified experts.
 
Evidently your own reading comprehension isn't up to the task.


This is what is in my first post:

"Ultimately, we all believe what we want to believe based on our own experiences, politics, and world view."
 
Let's pretend for the sake of argument that we both agree that the experts being asked for their opinion are qualified experts.

I see no reason to engage in counterfactual pretence for the sake of soothing your ego.
 
So, is the doom implied in the title of this article, namely that we will bear witness to an economic collapse this year, totally misguided? More broadly speaking, when it comes to the economy who are we to trust? Politicians? Conspiracy theorists? Nobel prize winners? JREF forum posters? Drkitty?

I'd recommend Nouriel Roubini if you're looking for an educated perspective from a cautious analyst.
 
This is what is in my first post:

"Ultimately, we all believe what we want to believe based on our own experiences, politics, and world view."

Yes, and it’s that statement we are disputing. You can always find self proclaimed experts who dispute just about anything it turns into an excuse to believe whatever you want regardless of the facts.

What you need to be able to do is identify who’s a real expert and who is not. Sometimes experts mostly agree other times they don’t but you will never know unless you have some tools to figure out who is really an expert and who is spouting woo. The last thing you should be doing is simply ignoring expert consensus simply because there are people in the mass media who want to push something else.
 
From a somewhat recent DailyFinance article that I found Googling Roubini:

However, he's not alone in his recent analysis that foresees a second-half slowdown in U.S. GDP. Other economists are concerned that 10% unemployment makes a long-term recovery unlikely. Still others believe that bank lending is too low for small businesses to get the credit they need for hiring and expansion. Even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office doesn't think the 5.7% growth rate is sustainable. It recently said the expansion in the U.S. would remain between 2% and 3% for the balance of the year.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/n...ging-recovery/19339614/?icid=sphere_copyright

Sorry. The 'this is typical' stance is blind, naive, and counters facts and the evidence. The evidence is that the economy is flailing. If you need evidence for how frigging long such a thing can go on, just do some research on the so-called Japanese Lost Decade recession after the 80's financial bubble. It is still hurting the Japanese economy today to an extent.

Expect the worst 8 to 12 years of your lives (or hide your head in the sand, skeptics?) ...
 
Last edited:
I'd recommend Nouriel Roubini if you're looking for an educated perspective from a cautious analyst.

What's the difference between "a cautious analyst" and "a one-note wingnut"?

One of my rules of thumb for distinguishing a genuine expert from a lunatic scraped off the bottom of someone's shoe is that a genuine expert offers different opinions and makes different recommendation in different circumstances. If a doctor, he doesn't offer the same diagnosis every time. If a music critic, he doesn't passionately hate every concert he's attended. If an economist, he doesn't always predict doom and gloom --- or happy singing flowers and bunnies, for that matter.

I've never read a positive statement about the economic future from Roubini.
 
So, is the doom implied in the title of this article, namely that we will bear witness to an economic collapse this year, totally misguided?

That particular doom is almost certainly totally misguided, although I'm inclined to put some of the blame up to a bad headline writer, and part of it up to misquotation on your part.

The "final economic collapse"? "Economic End Times"? Get real.

I've not seen any serious suggestions that this particular blip -- harsh though it may be -- will end up being substantially worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s. And while the Depression sucked (as Grandma kept telling us, over and over and over again, until we finally put enough Jack Daniels in her coffee and she fell asleep), the fact remains that very few people starved, we didn't see mass food riots, Visigoths and Ostragoths didn't sack New York City and Chicago, etc. The United States managed to keep factories running, telephones and telegraphs connected, radio stations on the air, trains running, films in theaters,.... and had enough spare material lying around that it was able to pull His Majesty's bacon out of the fire during the early stages of WWII.

If you want to see what the economic End Times look like,... well, you won't see them from the window of a moving train, and you won't hear about them on commercial radio.
 
Last edited:
So, is the doom implied in the title of this article, namely that we will bear witness to an economic collapse this year, totally misguided? More broadly speaking, when it comes to the economy who are we to trust? Politicians? Conspiracy theorists? Nobel prize winners? JREF forum posters? Drkitty?

Given those choices I'd say Drkitt(en)y. If "doom" does start happening he'll acknowledge it pretty quickly I think. He's not trying to sell you anything or get you to do something, nor does he work for someone that is (unless you're a high school senior near his college I suppose).

Really though trying to call timing on any geo-economic event is a fools' game.. The mere fact that anyone with a dollar can bet it on the same possible outcomes means that by the time you're right about something for any valid/supportable reason it will already be a crowded trade. In theory there's only one "truth", so betting money based on that would be a bit too easy wouldn't it?

Like drkitten said we're just guessing if we try and say what a modern "depression" would be like. This isn't the 30s, and technology or other factors could make a prolonged economic contraction a different animal altogether than previous such situations.

Is this all misguided? Well.. There are many valid reasons to be worried about the U.S. economy, even people who consider us to be in a recovery make a point of attaching the word "modest" to it any chance they get.. But even if we "double-dip" or whatever, how bad is that? How much worse than 2008? What if it's exactly 30% worse, what are the implications? Mad Max? Silent Running? 1980s inflation?

This is what happens when you talk about perpetually uncharted territory like economics or geopolitics, half the sentences in your paragraphs end in question marks and in the end none of it is going to make you any money.

(Edit: If you're really just worried about "losing everything" you can hold a bunch of cash/treasuries with some unhedged gold mining companies or buy a ton of junk silver or something as a counterbalance in case of eventual inflation. Then forget you even did any of that because you will be bored to death for the foreseeable future if you pay attention to those investments in any way.)

(Edit 2: This is because the unforeseeable future is your big concern. But really not losing quite so bad sometimes = winning, take miners in 2008/2009 for example. I made some small-time profit by simply holding miners all the way down the drain, then when they bottomed first I had the intervening time as nothing but easy buying opportunities for things that had been hit even harder even later and hadn't even begun their recovery yet unlike the recently-pwned prices of the gold/miners.)
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes:

During the Great Depression, 75% of the country was employed and buying stuff.

The unemployment rate is misleading. The underemployment rate is more telling. 16.5%.

During the great depression, most families had only one wage earner. 25% unemployment then would be far more devastating than it would be now.
 
(Edit: If you're really just worried about "losing everything" you can hold a bunch of cash/treasuries with some unhedged gold mining companies or buy a ton of junk silver or something as a counterbalance in case of eventual inflation. Then forget you even did any of that because you will be bored to death for the foreseeable future if you pay attention to those investments in any way.)

What do you guys think of things like Harry Browne's "Permanent Portfolio"?

25% US stocks
25% US treasuries
25% cash/money market
25% precious metals (chiefly gold)

It's reasoned that the stocks are for prosperous times, the treasuries for prosperous or deflationary times, cash for flexibility, and gold as a hedge against inflation: http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/20/fail-safe-investing-harry-brownes-permanent-portfolio/

- Scott
 
25% US stocks
25% US treasuries
25% cash/money market
25% precious metals (chiefly gold)

Keep in mind that "treasuries" and "cash" are allies.. If you're going to ally stocks and precious metals do so fully, include silver equally to gold as it is both industrial like equities but has intrinsic value like gold.
 
Keep in mind that "treasuries" and "cash" are allies.. If you're going to ally stocks and precious metals do so fully, include silver equally to gold as it is both industrial like equities but has intrinsic value like gold.

Yeah, I think the distinction is that the cash/MM earns less than the (long-term) treasuries, but is more liquid. At least on paper, the PP sounds like a good plan to protect against loss and beat inflation.

- Scott
 

Back
Top Bottom