Peter Schiff gets a lot of shit for being into gold and hyperinflation,

>>1070192
It's not really much of anything when you keep predicting it will rain and then eventually it rains.

I can also keep saying "THERE WILL BE A RECESSION SOON, A VERY BIG RECESSION AND VERY SCARY".

And then when nothing happens for years - I can make excuses. "Oh it just didn't happen yet, it will happen you'll see!", and then something small happens and it rebounds, I can say "Oh that's just some small waves before the tidal wave, don't worry it'll be there!".

Eventually 15 years later there is a recession and I say "SEE I WAS RIGHT, WHY DIDN'T YOU BELIEVE ME?". But then again if people had believed me they would've been sitting waiting for 15 years, foolishly.

>>1070196
>THERE WILL BE A RECESSION SOON, A VERY BIG RECESSION AND VERY SCARY


But he gives specific reasons for the recessions, so its a moot point.

>>1070192
>he probably has a better track record than most.

Track record for being consistently wrong as a petulant doomer or consistently profitable for selling his gold to other retarded doomers?

>>1070197
Yes but it's incredibly general and he is repeatedly wrong.

It's literally just saying some predictions and then aligning it up so that whatever he said "was a prophecy".

Kind of like those fortune-tellers who are never wrong because they said SOMETHING will happen(at no specific date) and are incredibly vague in what it is so that when you complain they'll just say "Keep waiting my child, it will happen soon enough!". Eventually of course something does happen and the person just assumes the fortuneteller predicted that event.


By this logic /pol/ is right because they predicted some mass shootings and other big events... But not really because they make those predictions every 2 hours.

>>1070208
>incredibly general
Not really though. all the way back in 06 he went into detail about the the crisis is, and today he gives specific reasons for how he thinks the next recession will unfold.

But here is why I say he has a better track record than most: So many bullish analysts are guilty of the same things you say, but no one really holds them to the same standard.

"the fundamentals of the us economy are strong." "stocks are a bargain, buy the dip" "its only going higher."

They were saying the same things back in 07 as they are now, yet no one holds them to the same standard.

>>1070221
Buy the dip and it's only going higher is absolutely correct and is the wisest thing you can do though.

Hey, I like Peter Schiff, pretty interesting and cool guy. But what I don't like is his fearmongering, "doomsday"-attitude and the shilling of gold.

It's strange to like a guy but also hate some of his core fundamentals.

>>1070228
>Buy the dip and it's only going higher is absolutely correct

But its not always. The meme of "the stock marketalways trends upwards" is based on a relatively anomalous set of circumstances the US economy has faced since 1960 or so. It doesnt always hold true.

The market didnt return to 1929 levels until 1956.

The Nikkei hasnt even come close to 1987 highs.

If you just say "things are going great" over and over again, you may be right.

It just seems that bears always have way more data to back up what they are saying, and bullish analysis always tends to be shallow. Not always, but far too often, especially on CNBC.

>>1070234
Also, the FTSE 100 has been averaging flat since 2000

>better track record than most

Has literally predicted a crash every year for almost 20 years.