as peter said in his reply, his strategies are long term, his investments are down now but he is sticking to his guns that they will recover because they have sound fundanmentals. you have to admire his conviction, he doesnt budge from his stance no matter how the market swings.

"Debaters resort to ad hominen tactics, students of rhetoric say, when they don't have the facts on their side. "

#1 They also use them when they're angry or looking to shed light on motive, as done in criminal courts every day.

#2 You must be hoping that no one reads the rest of the article.

I read the full text of Peter's statement. He clearly says that he can't respond directly due to financial regulations on broker/dealers. Mish is an RIA.

Schiff for Senate!!! http://schiff2010.com

Actually Peter Schiff is a LONG TERM stratagist. You people can't see past the tip of your nose which is why the economy is so bad in the first place. Peter Schiff has been right about every major economic trend sense 2002. Just because the dollar didn't loose as much value in 2008 as you thought he said it would doesn't make him wrong. It just means it has not happened YET. I havn't seen any real proof of how Schiff has bad stratagies or ideas. Only attacks about 1 client (that we know for sure) lost a large percent of his money. However most of his clients are in it for the long term.

I look at this supposed backlash at Schiff as selective reasoning by the blogger in question. If I had a choice between taking the advice of the naysayers (either back then at their embarrassing appearance on "Peter Schiff was Right" or now) and Peter Schiff, I would pick Schiff every day of the week. Following the advice of one naysayer to buy Wamu a year or two ago would put you beyond the poor house, it would put you in beggar's prison.

Jay's analysis is exactly what I was thinking when I read Schiff's response. Schiff should have admitted his shortcomings, praised Shedlock's analysis and willingness to blog for free on a regular basis, and then state that while he still has a long term perspective he has had to incorporate short term flexibility as Shedlock has. he could have then asked Shedlock what Shedlock's long term prediction was. Shedlock wouldn't have done it.

He would have come across as a gentleman and stayed in the argument.

@Michael Dunton....Mike Shedlock never advocated buying WaMu now did he?

Give Shedlock a closer look and you'll see his grasp of the market and banking is dead on.

It's a real shame, because in the grand scheme of things, both these men are on the same side, fighting the good fight. While I have not analyzed any of Peter's client portfolios, I know he is long gold, short the dollar, short the entire US economy in general (Google Dr. Doom and the guy comes up on the first page) and long on foreign stocks of nations that are not US export dependent. Gold is doing well, but the dollar has not collapsed...yet, and foreign nations/stocks even those not US export dependent are doing very poorly, much more so than anticipated. The dollar's reserve currency status will serve to delay its collapse, but there is no way to avoid it when you monetize as much debt as we have, are, and will continue to do.

Regarding the response by Schiff: I've read Mr. Shedlock for 3 years, and consider him among the top in the field. Mr. Shedlock has always risen above the fray in his publication standards, day-in and day-out. Further, if people Mr. Schiff bested in the past gravitate to Mr. Shedlock's thesis and research, that's no reflection on Mr. Shedlock.

I respect both analysts, Schiff and Shed, but both have been wrong.
Schiff over stretched the decoupling argument and dollar collapse. Yes, dollar devaluation is coming, but Schiff's timing and measure of it are wrong enough that he must be losing client's $$$. Schiff has also been to optimistic about Asia in particular. He underestimated export dependency.

Shed trusts government stats far too much in a way that Schiff, rightly, will not go near. Shed seems to have most of his cards on the N.A. markets, which does leave a severe dollar vulnerability. He's fixated on US numbers to the point of distraction. How can one play a market that is so awful in lack of transparency and data?

Both do not get the political imperatives that will never go away. They're like Apple customers in 1995 hoping the rest of the PC marketplace will just "get it". They won't. I would not invest with either of these heterodox economists because they might temper their investing with too much politicking (against each other even).