3 ms·

Go long on the dollar, we'll go long on Bitcoin and gold. Let's see where you are in a few years when QE-infinity keeps on going.

• Steko 13y ago
  How about quit moving the goalposts and examine the years you've been wrong about inflation already.
  • jwallaceparker 13y ago
    I don't think the exact timing matters much when evaluating this sort of thing. Peter Schiff's focus is long term trends. He's constantly saying it's impossible to forecast exactly when the bottom will drop out. Just that it will if we continue down QE infinity. That seems sensible. How can endless money printing end in anything but inflation?
    • Steko 13y ago
      Stop making excuses for Peter Schiff, that quote from Dec 28, 2009 is unequivocal about both the timing ("Whether it’s going to run out of control [in 2010] or it’s going to take until 2011 or 2012...") and the magnitude ("if we don’t reverse course ... we will end up with hyperinflation and it will be like Zimbabwe.") "How can endless money printing end in anything but inflation?" Because it's not really "endless" or "infinite"? If you want to be taken seriously engage with the real policy of QE, not some caricature. Seriously, it's not hard to find explanations of why there's below average inflation despite a tripling of the money supply. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Why+QE+did+not+cause+inflation http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Why+QE+did+not+cause+inflation
    • dragonwriter 13y ago
      > He's constantly saying it's impossible to forecast exactly when the bottom will drop out. Just that it will if we continue down QE infinity. Sure, if we continue QE when the conditions on which QE is premised go away, that would be expected to produce potentially substantial inflation. But the reason QE is continuing is the existence of precisely the conditions (with regard to extensions of credit and resulting demand) that indicate that QE will not cause inflation. Were those situations to end, QE would be terminated, since the entire reason that QE is being done would no longer exist. > That seems sensible. To the extent that it is sensible, it is irrelevant to the real world, since the policy isn't "QE forever ignoring actual conditions relevant to inflation". To the extent that it is a criticism of actual real-world policy, it is not sensible. > How can endless money printing end in anything but inflation? Quite easily. First, money printing can fail to lead to increases in the effective money supply if banks destroy money but not extending credit as existing credit is paid off in a quantity which offsets the increase in the money supply that would be expected due to printing. (This is basically the QE situation.) Second, even beyond that, expanding the money supply that is actually chasing goods and services isn't expected to lead to inflation if the rate at which the supply expands is less than or equal to the rate at which new goods and services for it to chase are created. So, depending on the rate of money creation, increases to the money supply can continue forever without any expectation of inflation. (This is why, if you don't want deflation and don't have declining production, you need some money supply growth under normal conditions.)