Pedictions from those who predicted the financial crisis!

[EliteCageFighting]

What Are The People Who Predicted the Financial Crisis Predicting Now?

George Washington’s Blog
Tuesday, Dec 09, 2008

There are only a handful of people who predicted this financial crisis, or at least its severity.
What are they predicting now?

Peter Schiff and Ron Paul

Schiff, the manager of over $1 billion dollars in investments, says the U.S. will enter a long period which could be worse than the Great Depression.
Schiff also thinks that the economic crisis might lead to martial law.
He thinks that Asia and Europe, after a period of economic downturn, will “decouple” from the U.S., eventually enjoying great prosperity long before the U.S. recovers.

Schiff has admitted that he did not foresee the current rally in the dollar, and his investors - long in Asian and European stocks - are way down.
Schiff was Ron Paul’s chief economic advisor during his campaign. Paul has himself predicted the crisis for many years, and has warned that America is spending more than it can afford. Paul has also repeatedly warned of martial law.

Nouriel Roubini

Roubini, the PhD economist, thinks we are going to have what he calls “stag-deflation”, meaning severe stagnation and deflation. Basically, he thinks that we’re heading into a depression without extreme government action.

He’s also warning of possible food riots.

Marc Faber

PhD economist Faber, who called both the 1987 crash and the current crisis, believes that there will be a bear rally for a couple of months, and then a further crash.

He is convinced the U.S. will go bankrupt sooner or later.
Faber also thinks that the crisis may spell and end for the traditional American form of government, to be replaced by martial law or some other unsavory form of government.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Economist, highly-regarded investment advisor, and one of the world’s foremost authorities on derivatives Nassim Nicholas Taleb, thinks that “capitalism I” is over, and things will get very bad before we get to a new form of “capitalism II”, where banks will act like utilities instead of money-making pirates.

Taleb has [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3zZ6qNWeGw&NR=1"]warned[/ame] that supermarkets may shut down. While he wouldn’t directly tell Charlie Rose how bad he thinks things will get, he did say he thinks things will be worse than Roubini is predicting.

Antal E. Fekete and Darryl Schoon

Professor Emeritus of Mathematics Antal E. Fekete and author Darryl Schoon think that our entire modern society will crash and break down (gold bugs, they believe all assets will crater except gold).

Afterword: The Greatest Depression

As an afterword, it should be pointed out that - while it was really bad - the Great Depression was not the greatest crash in history. Indeed, one writer describes the Great Depression as “a mild and brief episode, compared to the bank crash of the 1340’s . . . .”

That’s a stunning piece of information: the Great Depression was nothing compared to the crash in Venice in 1340. How can anything have been that much worse than the Great Depression? Well, the 1340 crash ushered in the dark ages.

Now I don’t think anything nearly that bad is coming. But discussions about whether we are going to experience something as horrible as America’s Great Depression should not be taken in a vacuum. Unless our government stops messing things up and making them worse, things could get quite ugly.

Note: I apologize to the others who predicted the crash whose names were not included in the above list, like Shostak, Calente and others. I tried to keep the list short. I appreciate your efforts in sounding the alarm and applaud your ongoing efforts to educate the public.

 

[Wabatuckian]

Try to get a degree, or at least experience, in a skilled trade that people will not be able to do without. For example, those who live on farms will need folks who know how to repair pumps.

Get trading goods - Coffee, ammo, tobacco. I have a can that I empty the odd .22 rounds into, as well as a few 7.62x54r 12 gauge rounds. Anything that can bring down deer or rabbit.

Sounds bad, but the coffee and tobacco, well, some people simply won't be able to quit and they'll be like druggies needing a fix.

You don't have to invest in gold, just so long as you invest now in what will be needed then.

Josh <><

 

[Hoosier8]

Frightening to say the least. I can see many more robberies due to desperation if things get worse, leading to martial law if these predictions come to pass. All that we worry about might be just a form of spitting in the wind.

Look at this prediction:

FT.com / Columnists / Gideon Rachman - And now for a world government

And now for a world government

By Gideon Rachman

Published: December 8 2008 19:13 | Last updated: December 8 2008 19:13

James Ferguson



I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.

 

[Hoosier8]

Try to get a degree, or at least experience, in a skilled trade that people will not be able to do without. For example, those who live on farms will need folks who know how to repair pumps.

Get trading goods - Coffee, ammo, tobacco. I have a can that I empty the odd .22 rounds into, as well as a few 7.62x54r 12 gauge rounds. Anything that can bring down deer or rabbit.

Sounds bad, but the coffee and tobacco, well, some people simply won't be able to quit and they'll be like druggies needing a fix.

You don't have to invest in gold, just so long as you invest now in what will be needed then.

Josh <><

I couldn't agree with you more. A skill will carry you through. I am lucky in that I have many skills, one of the reasons I have a high paying job without a degree. I may not be able to live at my present level in such a scenario but I could get by.