Note:  I do not know Mish and only began reading his Blog 10 days ago.  While I find him an ‘interesting commentator’ I read his articles with a healthy skepticism – an approach I bring to everything I read.

An article titled ‘Peter Schiff Answers His Critics’ is posted today on Seeking Alpha – click here.  It is 4 printed pages of highly defensive rebuttal to the ‘Mish Post’ I commented on earier on this Blog – click here.  The Press (notably the Wall Street Journal) and others have commented extensively on Mish’s Post.  The publicity Mish’s Post has received may be the reason Schiff deals, in my view, on a low and unbecoming level in his current article – I say it doesn’t ‘look good on him’.  He begins the article (not naming Mish) referring to Mish as “a very small money manager (attempting) to use his popular financial blog to promote his fledgling business”.  Schiff goes on to say:  “To achieve his ends, this individual has distorted much of what I have been saying and writing, and has twisted the facts to support his own preconceived conclusion. In essence, his piece is nothing more than an overt advertisement (and a highly deceptive one at that) to use my popularity to advance his career.”

Schiff has not taken the ‘high road’.  He clearly is entitled to rebut Mish’s views.  He should have done just that in an impersonal and logical manner.  For me, who has bought and read Schiff’s books, his approach degrades him, not Mish.

I have written several technical books on Business Valuation.  These books are used by most senior litigators and valuation experts in Canada, and are frequently referenced by Canadian Courts.  I say that, not because I talk about those books often –I don’t and have no ego need to – but to give some context and credibility to my following comments.  I have found that many authors write out of ego need to be recognized.  The best ones write because they have something to say in circumstances where they are more interested in helping their readers than helping themselves.  I don’t know Schiff, but his ‘low road’ ‘personal attack’ approach to dealing with Mish’s criticism doesn’t impress me one bit.  In my view he either should have said nothing, or should have written a ‘high road’ carefully thought out rebuttal that would (done properly) have added to his existing work.  I don’t see him having done that.

Read Schiff’s article by clicking here, and commenting if you wish on whether you think I have the foregoing right.

The views expressed in this Post are those of the author. They are offered to readers for information and general guidance only. They are neither intended to, nor should be taken to, constitute economic or investment advice. No check of data underlying articles or comments referenced herein has been made, and no responsibility is taken for them.  See Legal Disclaimer.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Steve Jobs (1955 – 2011)
• So – Who Wants To Be Successful?
• An Inspirational Story in Bad Times!
• Michael Hlinka on Business Reporting
• Steve Jobs Neighbour

To read 3 articles that deal with U.S. trade protectionism in the Obama Stimulus Package now before the U.S. Congress click here, click here, and click here.

The ‘Buy American’ provisions in the Stimulus Package require major public works projects to favor U.S. steel, iron and manufacturing over imports, leaving out manufactured goods.  It is suggested, in my view sensibly, that if these measure are passed a trade war could result.  So far, Canada, the European Union (the U.S.’s two largest trading partners), Brazil, Japan and India have all spoken out against trade protectionist measures.  Some commentators believe an American protectionist policy would cost the U.S. more jobs that would be gained.  For background, trade protectionism was introduced by the U.S. at the beginning of the Great Depression and lead to the worldwide retaliation – this in the early 1930’s long before the extent of economic globalization that now exists.

I live in Toronto.  From the time I learned of the U.S. bail-out of its Automotive Industry I have been concerned about U.S. protectionism and introduction of a formalized ‘Buy American’ policy.  The N.A. Auto Industry is a fully integrated industry essentially without borders.  Approximately 20% of all vehicles sold in the U.S. are assembled in Canada – a % highly disproportional to the Canada/U.S. 10:1 population demographic.  Loss of Ontario auto jobs related to auto assembly plant closures would be devastating to the Ontario economy, and even more so if auto parts production by ‘parts feeder companies’ not owned by the automakers also was affected.  This is but one example of the negative economic impact a formalized and active ‘Buy American’ policy could have on Canada.  A litany of similar issues would arise in the cases of U.S.’s other major trading partners.  I will follow this issue in subsequent posts.

The views expressed in this Post are those of the author. They are offered to readers for information and general guidance only. They are neither intended to, nor should be taken to, constitute economic or investment advice. No check of data underlying articles or comments referenced herein has been made, and no responsibility is taken for them.  See Legal Disclaimer.

Possibly Related Posts:

• An Accident Waiting to Happen, or ‘Ever Closer To The Cliff’!
• After Spain, is Italy Next?
• Spain and Spanish Bank Dilemma!
• China Banking Camel In U.S. Tent?
• No Alternative To Austerity

Bloomberg has just posted an article titles ‘Gold Climbs to 3-Month High in London as Fund Demand Increases’ – read here.  The article says that SPDR Gold Trust gold holdings increased 1.3% to 843.59 metric tons in January.  The article quotes a Dresdner Bank (Zurich) analyst as saying:  “There’s really strong physical demand from the ETFs, there’s a motivation to preserve some wealth”, and a Standard Bank Group (Johannesburg) analyst as saying:  “The relationship between precious metals and the greenback could be dislocated in the short run due to safe-haven investment flows.  Precious metals could encourage investment-fund flows even if the dollar strengthens more”.

The views expressed in this Post are those of the author. They are offered to readers for information and general guidance only. They are neither intended to, nor should be taken to, constitute economic or investment advice. No check of data underlying articles or comments referenced herein has been made, and no responsibility is taken for them.  See Legal Disclaimer.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Spain and Spanish Bank Dilemma!
• Sprott On Economic Fundamentals (and Gold)
• Gold, Interest Rates, Price Forecasts?
• Gold, Inflation, Other Factors!
• Gold – On The Way Down?

U.S. Q4 GDP has just been reported as down 3.8% in Q4, down 5.1% excluding a buildup of inventories – read here.  Escalated government spending ought to occur when GDP is rising, not when it is falling.  Accordingly, while no surprise, this drop in GDP – which I think won’t reverse any time soon – is oxymoronic in the context of the U.S. government bailout programs and the ever increasing cumulative U.S. National Debt.

The views expressed in this Post are those of the author. They are offered to readers for information and general guidance only. They are neither intended to, nor should be taken to, constitute economic or investment advice. No check of data underlying articles or comments referenced herein has been made, and no responsibility is taken for them.  See Legal Disclaimer.

Possibly Related Posts:

• An Accident Waiting to Happen, or ‘Ever Closer To The Cliff’!
• After Spain, is Italy Next?
• Spain and Spanish Bank Dilemma!
• China Banking Camel In U.S. Tent?
• No Alternative To Austerity