Jump to content
Gonzalo Lira

Mish Refuses to Debate Gonzalo Lira

Recommended Posts

This is from the comments section at Zero Hedge:

 

 

by Mish

on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 01:25

#580030

 

For the record

 

1. I am a Libertarian not a Republican

 

2. The only candidates I have backed on my blog are Libertarians masquerading as Republicans

 

3. I have since I started blogging in 2005 been a fan of gold, posting (correctly) a couple times I thought gold was a particularly good buy. It amazes me that people here have no idea my position on gold. People mistakenly assume all deflationists hate gold. They don't.

 

4. Lira sent me an email, "throwing a gauntlet" challenging me to respond. I did. He got what he asked for.

 

5. There is no point in further debating the flat earth society. I responded with how and why Lira's arguments make no sense.There is nothing to debate. He had his say, he asked me to respond, I did.

 

6. All we have to do is wait another year to see how silly this is given his statement "I’m guessing if it doesn’t happen this fall, it’ll happen next fall, without question before the end of 2011."

 

7. There is a lot of debate among Austrians on the inflatiuon deflation debate. Those predicting hyperinflation or strong inflation (like Schiff) blew it. Credit rules in a Fiat based credit economy.

 

8. I called for deflation, we got it, we are in it, by credit. Unlike hyperinflationists still "waiting for Godot", I have the liberty of changing my position at any time. It is the hyperinflationists who are stuck, not me. I fully intend to switch positions at the right time.

 

9. My call was and still is "the US will go in and out of recession and in and out of deflation for a number of years just like Japan." 2008 was a deflation year, 2009 was an inflation year, and via credit contraction I believe we are back in deflation. I think we are headed back in recession soon enough. We will see about Lira's call soon enough.

 

10. I correctly warned against shorting treasuries in 2007-2008 and in December of 2008 advised people to take treasuries off the table. After a runup in yields I liked them again and still do now although they are not the bargain they were when the 10-year was at 4%

 

11. The equity runup in 2009 was far greater than I thought. No one is perfect. I am far from perfect and readily admit when I am wrong.

 

12. At this stage of the game hyperinflation is a hyperinflationst's wet dream. We are years (and massive amouts of credit destruction away from serious inflation threats. Again credit is the key. Those professing to be "austrians" without attempting to understand the role of credit are not Austrian but rather fools.

 

13. In this thread, most of the serious replies discussed what was said. Those posts tended to side with me. All of the ad hominum attacks, sided with Lira and not one of them refuted anything I said.

 

14. I am not afraid to debate anyone. I debated Marc Faber on Market Ticker and afterword he came to my house. We are friends. But there is no point in debating anyone whose arguments are so full of holes they are tantamount to debating the flat earth society. I did so once - not because of a gauntlet but because ZH misquoted me (an accident I am sure) and I am not blaming him for it.

 

Actually I thank him for it, because I trashed a viral post that despertately needed trashing.

 

Mish

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my answer to Mish's . . . whatever that was:

 

 

by Gonzalo Lira

on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 02:13

#580073

 

Mish writes,

 

"I am not afraid to debate anyone. [. . .] But there is no point in debating anyone whose arguments are so full of holes they are tantamount to debating the flat earth society."

 

In other words, Mish will debate anyone—unless they disagree with him. If anyone disagrees with him, then he won't debate them—because "[they're] arguments are so full of holes".

 

Mm-hmm . . .

 

By my posts and my interview with Michael Hampton, I don't think anyone doubts that I'm fairly rational and knowledgeable about the subject. Many people here have said that they'd enjoy a lively debate. I would too, frankly. I'm not afraid of having my ideas and logic challenged.

 

But hey, if Mish is afraid . . . Oh, excuse me: If Mish thinks that there's "no point" in debating me, well, then I guess we have the answer as to what sort of man Mish Shedlock really is.

 

(BTW, has anyone wondered why "Dungeon Master Mish" would post such a long, tedious comment on this thread, if he really thought that I and everyone else here were members of the flat-earth society? Just a random, silly thought of mine.)

 

GL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Mish's FURTHER rantings in the comment thread of my public challenge to him, also from Zero Hedge's comment section:

 

 

by Mish

on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 06:25

#580186

 

Someone mentioned Janszen

 

Eric is a good debater and writer. I have been in many discussions with him. However, Janszen views inflation as price increases.

 

By his definition we are not going to have sustained deflation and by his definition he can easily be correct. The problem is one cannot debate or have any kind of reasonable discussion unless there is an agreement on the definition.

 

Austrian economists (at least most of them) look at inflation as an expansion of money and credit. Schiff's downfall is that he only looks at money supply and he got blown out of the water as did anyone else who followed him.

 

Rosenberg watches credit all the time, but interestingly talks about deflation in terms of prices. To reconcile that, Rosenberg often says things like "deflationary environment" where I would say "deflation" and Janszen would say "inflation"

 

However Janszen does mention "debt deflation" quite often. To me - Debt Deflation IS Deflation. In a fiat based credit society - debt deflation is how deflation will manefest itself. Janszen and I are thus often in "violent agreement"

 

There are many problems with looking at inflation in terms of prices. Prices can rise for many reasons other than expansion of money.

 

Peak oil is one example. Government regulation is another. Taxes are another. Inflation in another country (China) is another key one.I have to laugh at those who expect the Fed to control rising prices resultant from peak oil or monetary printing in China.

 

At best prices are a lagging indicator not predictive of anything. Those shorting treasuries when oil hit $140 got their heads blown off. Credit was imploding and it was an easy call to say that all time record lows across the entire yield curve were coming. I know of no one else who made that call except perhaps Prechter who has made that call for two decades.

 

Prechter's huge mistake is he failed to see forces that would allow the expansion of credit: moving from 1 wage earner family to 2 wage earners, the borrowing power of a huge expansion of PEs during the internent boom, then the housing boom with years of lowering of credit standards - all kept Prechter wrong for decades - until 2007.

 

The "recovery" in 2009 started with a recovery in the mark-to-market valuation of debt - notably corporate bonds. Corporations priced for extinction got a new lease on life and then some by rolling over corporate bonds at increasingly lower yields.

 

While that threat may (or may not be) gone, commercial real estate and housing are headed for another spill. Consumers continue to walk away from houses. Credit card debt continues to shrink and the economy is clearly weakening.

 

One cannot ascertain any of that by looking at the price of food or gasoline.

 

Yet I have people tell me all the time my definition is wrong and that prices are all that matters. Such thinking is extremely short-sighted.

 

When credit is contracting, businesses are not hiring. When businesses are not hiring consumers are not spending. Asset prices head for the gutter. The drop of a home in price from $600,000 to $300,000 makes a hell of a lot more difference on consumer spending and attitudes than the price of carrots going up by a dollar or milk going up by 35% or whatever.

 

What is happening in the credit markets is almost always more important than prices. A focus on the CPI is like looking in the rear view mirror. It says little about what's coming up next.

 

A huge drop in credit signals bad things about jobs, asset prices, consumer spending, treasury yields etc etc etc - In other words nearly everything one would expect to see in deflation.

 

I have repeatedly tried to bring this point home, most recently in

 

Are we "Trending Towards Deflation" or in It?

 

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com...rending-towar...

 

Inflationists might also ponder Bernanke's Deflation Prevention Scorecard in April 2009.

 

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com...s-deflation-p...

 

Bernanke failed and like Japan he will fail again. The most likely thing is we fall in and out of deflation for some time with extremely weak jobs and no recovery in real estate.

 

Ironically, those predicting hyperinflation ought to buy houses. There has never been a hyperinflation in history where tangible assets or real estate has fallen in price. And Real estate can still be purchased with 5% or 10% down. Huge leverage.

 

Yet I am not aware of any hyperinflationist saying "buy houses"

 

Amazingly Schiff called for hyperinflation and a real estate crash. How silly is that? More importantly he advised in his book for people to borrow against their house at 6% and buy foreign equities. Anyone who did that got hammered mercilessly.

 

That is the kind of nonsense that happens when you fail to take credit into consideration. Schiff pointed to the "printing by the Fed" and still cannot figure out what happened.

 

What happened is easy - credit, access to credit, and credit on the balance sheets of banks collapsed far faster than the Fed printed.

 

Conditions changed in 2009 when Bernanke managed to revive the corporate bond market - in turn lifting equities. However, Bernanke did not and cannot revive consumer spending and bernake cannot create jobs.Nor can Bernanke change attitudes. Attitudes are huge: If consumers do not want to borrow or spend there is no way Bernanke can force them to do so.

 

Thus we are poised to go down the tubes once again. If so, I expect gold to once again outperfom oil. Gold is the only commodity whose long-term trendline was not smashed in 2008.

 

Gold is not a hedge against ordinary inflation. The fact that it fell from 850 to 250 between 1980 and 2000 with inflation every step of the way is proof enough.

 

Gold does act well in periods of credit stress and also at extremes - high inflation and deflation in the senior currency.

 

With treasury yields in the gutter, with credit sinking, etc etc the proper conclusion is gold in not reacting to inflation but to credit stress or deflation.

 

That is why I like gold.

 

Can hyperinflation happen? Sure but right now the odds are small. The threat is not the Fed, but rather Congress giving money away. With the upcoming election, we are going to see a more conservative Congress for sure. There will be more stimulus efforts of course, but there is no reason to believe they will stimulate anything other than the price of gold, at least vs other commodities on a relative if not outright basis.

 

Mish

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line, Mr. Shedlock—or as I like to call him "Dungeon Master Mish"—has no problem distorting people's views in his writings.

 

But he does not have the balls or the nerve or the arguments to debate one-on-one.

 

So to answer my originaly question about Mr. Shedlock: The guy's a coward.

 

GL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recently posed this simple question.

Mish seems to support his "deflation" theory with claims that consumer prices are falling. He appears to only quote official numbers for anything. I may be wrong on this, and if I am, please let me know.

But, if I am right, why doesn't he quote Shadowtats? If he does not, is it because that would rather mess up his theory, because it would show consumer prices rising.

 

I don't read many of Mish's articles, but all those I do, from memory have ignored ShadowStats.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is Mish's FURTHER rantings in the comment thread of my public challenge to him, also from Zero Hedge's comment section:

Mish

Not exactly "rantings" - more like bulletpoints, and I agree with most of them - but not all.

 

I think these are the CORE POINTS ========

 

Ironically, those predicting hyperinflation ought to buy houses. There has never been a hyperinflation in history where tangible assets or real estate has fallen in price. And Real estate can still be purchased with 5% or 10% down. Huge leverage.

 

Yet I am not aware of any hyperinflationist saying "buy houses"

 

Amazingly Schiff called for hyperinflation and a real estate crash. How silly is that? More importantly he advised in his book for people to borrow against their house at 6% and buy foreign equities. Anyone who did that got hammered mercilessly.

 

That is the kind of nonsense that happens when you fail to take credit into consideration. Schiff pointed to the "printing by the Fed" and still cannot figure out what happened.

 

What happened is easy - credit, access to credit, and credit on the balance sheets of banks collapsed far faster than the Fed printed.

 

Conditions changed in 2009 when Bernanke managed to revive the corporate bond market - in turn lifting equities. However, Bernanke did not and cannot revive consumer spending and bernake cannot create jobs.Nor can Bernanke change attitudes. Attitudes are huge: If consumers do not want to borrow or spend there is no way Bernanke can force them to do so.

=================================

 

I wonder if Mish has looked as closely at what happened in Weimar times, as I have - and some on GEI have also.

 

Housing related expenditures (like RENTS) went up only 1/100 as much as Food did (per the figures I obtained.)

So was Housing a good investment? There was also the problem of low rents holding yields down, and extreme pilferage suffered by Landlords.

 

GL does mention in the Podcast that Chilean Property was sold, and lost value (in Escudo terms!) during the Chilean hyperinflation. So how one be sure that US property would be a good investment? What seems likely to me is that gold is likely to be a far, far better investment than property

 

I agree with some parts: Schiff was right that housing was doomed, but he was wrong about foreign equities being a safe haven. Europe has most of the same problems as the US, and some European countries are worse off. Asia looks better, and that's why I moved to HK. Mish keeps predicting a crash in China, and that hasn't occurred yet, and if/when it does, it may prove milder than he expects.

 

I have always liked his points on credit, and I think he and Steve Keen are onto something important in how they look at credit.

 

Washington, including the Fed, does not seem to understand that jobs in the private sector, that generated tax revenues, are the only sort of jobs we really need. Make-work "stimulus jobs" are a net cost to the economy, making it less efficient

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GL does mention in the Podcast that Chilean Property was sold, and lost value (in Escudo terms!) during the Chilean hyperinflation. So how one be sure that US property would be a good investment? What seems likely to me is that gold is likely to be a far, far better investment than property

This is all very interesting, but why not provide a link to an extensive article, or even a book discussing the Chilean hyper-inflation [or even Argentina for that matter]. Unless you look further at the context and some of the detail, in order to draw parallels, or find a lack of them, then it's kind of pointless talking about hyper-inflation in the abstract. It just becomes a bogeyman.

 

Adam Ferguson's book, and others, on Weimar was excellent in this regard, and has lead some hyper-inflationists to distance themselves from a Weimar-like hyper-inflation [thinking of James Turk here].

 

Gonzalo, could you recommend some historical reference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have recently posed this simple question.

Mish seems to support his "deflation" theory with claims that consumer prices are falling. He appears to only quote official numbers for anything. I may be wrong on this, and if I am, please let me know.

Steve,

I think he has his own definition of DEFLATION, which others may call "credit deflation". If money and credit are falling - as he says is occurring now - then he would say we are experiencing deflation.

 

I still think that Gonzalo should focus on identifting the limited number of holes in his argument. His scenario remains plausible to me, and becomes more plausible when those holes are addressed.

 

In brief, he should be looking for: possible triggers for a Shazaam moment, a parabolic move in Treasuries could be part of that, but there are otehr potential triggers too. Personally, I think it is the most likely. But almost no one has picked up on my argument. I dont think I am wrong, but perhaps i am just very early for most people, or they are not traders, who understand what a parabolic move means. Anyway, it is probably best to make a lsit, rather than focus on a single one, and leave oneself open to attack.

 

I believe that, for the Shazaam to act as a hyperinflationary "spark", it needs several things to happen at the same time:

 

+ The dollar is ready to collapse

+ Bonds are ready to fall

+ Investors (who had held bonds) are ready to move into commodities

+ When oil prices shoot up, so do gasoline and/or food prices, and the jump is enough to PANIC people into abandoning many other assets to panic-buy commodities

 

GL, would you agree that your scenario may need all of these to come together?

 

It seems unlikely right now, but it is far from impossible. In fact, a slide in equities (in 2010 or 2011) might trigger a "safety" move into the US dollatr and bonds. And if bonds go parabolic as that occurs, and oil prices fall again, the stage might be set before the end of 2011. That's far from certain, but is possible. I would rather wait to see the stage set properly, than predict it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The drop of a home in price from $600,000 to $300,000 makes a hell of a lot more difference on consumer spending and attitudes than the price of carrots going up by a dollar or milk going up by 35% or whatever.

...

Mish

The problem is the possibility of a double whammy, something we have been talking so many times about and something that has been observed before (just take Gonzalo's article etc.): some asset prices might deflate (houses) while other consumer goods but especially necessities might go up in price. So, Mish seems to think if houses go down 50% milk can't go up 50% (or 200%). Well, dead wrong I would say, and that's where inflation will come back and haunt him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is the possibility of a double whammy, something we have been talking so many times about and something that has been observed before (just take Gonzalo's article etc.): some asset prices might deflate (houses) while other consumer goods but especially necessities might go up in price. So, Mish seems to think if houses go down 50% milk can't go up 50% (or 200%). Well, dead wrong I would say, and that's where inflation will come back and haunt him.

Possible.

But I think he is being consistent with his own definition of Deflation.

 

In fact, I think it is possible to have Mish-Deflation at the same time as Gonzalo-Hyperinflation.

 

I know that sounds completely crazy, but if properties were going for the same price as a beat-up old Fiat, that sounds like mortgage credit had completely disappeared, and so Mish might have defined that episode as "deflation"

 

All this goes to show how important definitions are.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is the possibility of a double whammy, something we have been talking so many times about and something that has been observed before (just take Gonzalo's article etc.): some asset prices might deflate (houses) while other consumer goods but especially necessities might go up in price. So, Mish seems to think if houses go down 50% milk can't go up 50% (or 200%). Well, dead wrong I would say, and that's where inflation will come back and haunt him.

 

agreed GF.

 

I just can't understand why certain posters/economists follow the gov mainstream stats & put all faith in them.....blindly, when before their very eyes prices are up for ALL basic needs.

 

The obvious one touted is petrol prices are down......down :blink: I get sick & tired of hearing this one. What, down compared to last years all time high perhaps......well yes down 2 pence per litre then....but still at a level higher than when half the country were prepared to strike over it. But now prices are just as high they don't bother......obviously this is directly linked to current job and the fact that the MSM have been hoodwinked into telling people that at least you have a job, don't you dare complain.

this is the bit I find hard to understand.

 

Have they (the deflationists in dollars ;) ) realised they are backed into a corner & have already made the wrong decisions (I wouldn't like to think I was buying into gold with the most of my wealth from this point, it's that human disconnect that we are unable to do realising that we have already missed out on a huge increase over the last few years), so in effect they are in 'chase the market down mode'....waiting....& waiting.....& waiting for the gold price to go to $800 or less ??

 

 

meanwhile the bankers have replaced their huge salaries with huge bonuses......under the guise that they are earning less.

 

this country is soooooooo stoopid. :)

 

 

ps - plus the yanks are just as daft. ;)

 

hyperinfaltion is a done deal, as some of us have been saying for the last couple of years. I am just starting to understand the full ramifications of what is unfolding from a historical stand point.

 

Listening to people who have been through a hyperinflation (or 2) is essential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... possible triggers for a Shazaam moment ...

I don't like the "Shazaam" word. Essentially we are talking about the Minsky Moment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsky_moment ) here, or try to explain when and why it will come.

 

The "when" is somewhat difficult, but the "why" is always the same: there is a limit to sustainable debt. Now, if you can print the currency your debt is denominated in, then indeed the situation is somewhat special. But that's exactly what GL points out: for the US the Minsky Moment might not mean huge debt deflation or default, IMO it might not even mean a major spike in IRs since they can buy along the whole yield curve, it might simply mean an upward shock in commodities when the crowd finally flees.

 

That very moment will be hand in hand with the Zulauf Scenario - remember?

It is the Keyenesian Endpoint. http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index....st&p=170652

 

EDIT: Felix Zulauf Scenario = bank & sovereign debt crisis returning, central banks (esp. the Fed) being forced to monetize $5T, $10T, $50T, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, I think it is possible to have Mish-Deflation at the same time as Gonzalo-Hyperinflation.

But that wouldn't be hyper-inflation [i'm assuming we're talking about currency destruction here].

 

Then if you decided instead to plot Mish-Deflation on a time-line, to be followed at a later date by Gonzalo-Hyperinflation, then you wouldn't have them at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GL, I concur.

Maybe you should let Shazaam go, and talk about a "shift" to commodities or something

That very moment will be hand in hand with the Zulauf Scenario - remember? http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index....st&p=170652

It is the Keyenesian Endpoint.

A good thread.

 

Now isn't the Keynesian endpoint, implied by Thatcher's classic comment:

"The problem with Socialism is: sooner or later you run out of other people's money."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have recently posed this simple question.

Mish seems to support his "deflation" theory with claims that consumer prices are falling. He appears to only quote official numbers for anything. I may be wrong on this, and if I am, please let me know.

But, if I am right, why doesn't he quote Shadowtats? If he does not, is it because that would rather mess up his theory, because it would show consumer prices rising.

 

I don't read many of Mish's articles, but all those I do, from memory have ignored ShadowStats.

 

Mish's capacity for coherent argument is limited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't like the "Shazaam" word. Essentially we are talking about the Minsky Moment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsky_moment ) here, or try to explain when and why it will come.

 

The "when" is somewhat difficult, but the "why" is always the same: there is a limit to sustainable debt. Now, if you can print the currency your debt is denominated in, then indeed the situation is somewhat special. But that's exactly what GL points out: for the US the Minsky Moment might not mean huge debt deflation or default, IMO it might not even mean a major spike in IRs since they can buy along the whole yield curve, it might simply mean an upward shock in commodities when the crowd finally flees.

 

That very moment will be hand in hand with the Zulauf Scenario - remember?

It is the Keyenesian Endpoint. http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index....st&p=170652

 

EDIT: Felix Zulauf Scenario = bank & sovereign debt crisis returning, central banks (esp. the Fed) being forced to monetize $5T, $10T, $50T, who knows.

 

The credit crunch WAS the Minsky moment. The losses incurred by the banks were caused by defaulting borrowers; their debts had grown too large relative to incomes. We then saw printy, printy. At the moment there's no serious inflation because velocity remains low. The losses keep on rolling in though, even with ZIRP. There will be more printy printy - the Kleptocrats in control won't allow the banks to go bust under the weight of bad debts. With each round of printy printy confidence in fiat as a store of value should gradually receed

 

That's when we get currency repudiation and a quick pick up in velocity that leads to higher inflation, which leads to higher inflation....kaboom!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The credit crunch WAS the Minsky moment.

I know what you mean. But we will get to some kind of Minsky Moment for sovereigns, e.g. the US government. They won't really be able to sell anything to pay their debt though, so watch out for alternative solutions.

 

Note: I see that "Minsky Moment" is not perfect fit for the sovereign case, therefore "Keynesian Endpoint" I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: Felix Zulauf Scenario = bank & sovereign debt crisis returning, central banks (esp. the Fed) being forced to monetize $5T, $10T, $50T, who knows.

 

:lol:

 

http://fofoa.blogspot.com/

 

Now I'm really not trying to gross you out in this next little bit. But in order to pass through my next explanation I am going to have to carefully and delicately shift metaphors... without visual aids this time. ;)

 

As escape pressure builds in the upper regions of the upper pyramid, the legal tender dollar constricts its escape route like a clinching sphincter muscle as its (the dollar's) price rises. And then all that value that escaped the upper region starts collecting and compacting in the large intestine of Treasury Bonds, held in place only by the swollen sphincter that is the swelling dollar.

 

Not that I hope you can relate to this metaphor – I'm sure some of you can – but what do you think happens when that "flow restrictor" lets go, just a tad? Do you think "just a tad" escapes? Perhaps… at first. But with the Fed shoveling Ex-Lax (QE) into the system like there's no tomorrow, what do you think the end result will be? Will it be a journey back up into the stomach?

 

I know I haven't proven anything in this post. But I warned you at the beginning that was not the goal. The goal here, as I stated at the top of this post, was to give you the proper way to view the flow of capital during a panic when analyzing the probability that it will be called "hyperinflation" after the fact.

 

Notice that there is nothing in this view about the addition of new dollars. There is nothing about printing wheelbarrows full of money. All that stuff is secondary to the initial blast that explosively exits through a very small opening.

 

The lesson I hope you'll take from this story is simple. The next time a deflationist tells you there is no possible mechanism for hyperinflation in the dollar, just show him your sphincter and say, "oh yeah?" ;)

 

This metaphor even holds for the Weimar hyperinflation. If we think about our 30 years of credibility inflation as "packing the musket" for hyperinflation, then we can view the first year and a half of the Weimar three-year experience in the same light: "packing the musket."

 

September 14, 2010 3:25 AM

Blogger Desperado said...

 

Bravo, Fofoa. Mish's arrogance is truly a sight to behold. I think Mish focused on Gonzalo Lira more because Lira's posts are more founded on his direct experiences and he made the mistake of saying when he thought the hyperinflation would occur. Your arguments are more esoteric and thought provoking.

 

When you were talking about the sphincter I was reminded of one of my favorite jokes as a child (forgive the vulgarity).

 

Once there was a circus owner who was looking for some way to make some money from a pig, and he got the idea to stick a cork in his anus. This worked wonders, and everywhere he went people would pay a to see the giant pig who kept growing bigger and bigger and bigger. Finally, the pig got so big that something had to be done. None of the circus owner's hired hands was willing to pull the cork out, so finally they decided to train one of the monkeys.

 

Afterwards, a news broadcaster was interviewing bystanders to find out what had happened. The first one said "miles and miles of shit". The second one said "miles and miles of shit". The third one said "all I remember was that poor monkey trying to stick the cork back in".

 

Well lets just hope that Mish is the one that has to try to uncork the flow restrictor when the panic hits.

 

even more :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting thread btw.....

 

GL,

you have a very direct style of posting, which I personally like.

 

Nice to have you posting here. It's a shame cdswamp (swampy) can't post atm, unfortunately he is on a forced posting holiday ;) .......but may be returning in person very soon depending on his posting style......which prompted me to write this post, because that's how he started off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
according to mish we should be in deflation in the uk but all i can see is my cost of living and my taxes rising.... what an idiot.

Tsts, don't be so harsh. Don't you see the deflation in "credit" and "yachts"??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tsts, don't be so harsh. Don't you see the deflation in "credit" and "yachts"??

:lol: good one GF. I used to enjoy reading/listening to Mish but he has gone WAY of track not just on his analysis but also in his general tone, manner and attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't take anyone that calls themselves 'mish' in this game seriously...... esepecially when my sister's cat is called that. :blink:

 

I also never liked the way he attacked Peter Schiff to propel himself into the media spotlight and gain more clients by the way he used the worst examples of Euro Pacific Capital clients that had lost large amounts of money in the crash - no doubt they were the greedy Johnny-come-lately's who were heavily invested in commodities and thought they knew best.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×