Marc Faber Warns "The Bubble Could Burst Any Day"; Prefers Physical Gold To Bitcoin

Tyler Durden's picture

"The Fed's policies have actually led to a lot of problems around the world," Marc Faber begins his discussion with Bloomberg TV's Trish Regan, especially "people in the lower income groups [who] spend say 30% of their income on energy, transportation, and so forth, electricity and gasoline." The Gloom, Boom & Doom Report author goes on to discuss everything from how the Fed is creating a two-class system around the world, the inexorable growth of governments, buying votes, Bitcoin, interest rates, wealth taxes, and overall market valuations. "We are in a gigantic financial asset bubble," Faber explains, "everybody's bullish," but he sees a slowing global economy (as do we e.g. Baltic Dry Index); "[The bubble] could burst any day. I think we are very stretched." Faber is on fire...

 

Take 10 minutes and listen...

 

 

Prepare yourself... "In China, if I say what I am saying about the USA, they would not let me in the country"

 

Faber on the Fed and how far the 'rubber band can be stretched':

"We have to distinguish between the financial economy, the financial sector, and the economy of the well-to-do people that benefit from rising asset prices, from rising prices of wines, and paintings and art, and bonds, and equities, and high-end properties in the Hamptons and West 15 here in New York and so forth -- and the average person, the typical household, the so-called 'median household', or the working class people. And the Fed's policies have actually led to a lot of problems around the world in the sense that they're not only responsible, but partly responsible that energy prices are where they are, they're up from $10 or $12 in 1999 to now around $100 a barrel. Food prices are up and a lot of other prices are up. So on your income, energy prices have very little impact because you at Bloomberg - you, young man - you make so much money. But for the poor people, it has an impact. Some people in the lower income groups, they spend say 30% of their income on energy, transportation, and so forth, electricity and gasoline."

On whether the Fed is creating a two-class system:

"Correct, largely. The problem is then that you have people like Bill de Blasio, they come in and say: 'you know what's the problem? All these rich guys. Because of these rich people, you are poor. They take advantage of you. So, let's go and tax them.' The IMF has come out with a paper in Europe that essentially the well-to-do people should pay a 10% wealth task -- a one-time wealth tax. I can assure you, a one-time wealth tax, 10%, will become an every-year's tax eventually."

On how to help the people on the lower end of the economic spectrum:

"This is the point I'd like to make. All of these professors and academics at the Fed who never really worked in the private sector a single day in their lives, and write papers nobody reads and nobody's is interested in. Why would they want not write about how you structure an economic system that lifts the standard of living of most people? You can't lift everybody."

 

"We had that in the 19th century in the U.S. because we had very small government at the time. The entire government -- local, state federal -- was less than 20% of the economy. Now it is close to 50% of the economy."

On whether the government is spending too much money:

"The larger the government becomes, the less economic growth you have and the more crony capitalism and corruptions you have. Because big corporations -- and especially the money printers, they're the most powerful people in the world, they control the governments. The U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the government is one and the same. The Fed, they finance the Treasury, so the government can go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then they finance transfer payments to essentially buy votes so you can get elected."

On bitcoin:

"I prefer physical gold and silver, platinum to bitcoin. Bitcoin can have a lot of competition. Gold, silver, platinum -- they have no competition. How do you value a bitcoin? I can value gold to some extent and compare say gold to the quantity of money that is floating around the world, to the wealth increase, and to the monetary base increase, to the credit increase, and so forth and so on, and to the production costs. So I have an idea of where gold should be. I'm not sure because prices overshoot. How do you value Netflix? Is it overpriced or underpriced? Is Tesla overpriced, underpriced?"

On interest rates:

"But one thing I wanted to show you and talk about because you said that lower interest rates help people. Well, if money trending helps everybody, then why does not everybody in the whole world always have zero interest rates? And everybody would be rich. You keep on printing money and you don't need to work here, you don't need to put on makeup. I could stay in bed the whole day and go drinking in the evenings. So, let's just print money and be all happy. It doesn't add up. One thing about the figures you showed: first of all, you live in New York. Do you really think that your cost-of-living increase is a 1.2% per annum? You really believe that? It doesn't feel like more, it feels like five times more, or even ten times more."

 

"Number two, by keeping interest rates at zero percent on the Fed fund rate -- i want to emphasize that this is now going on in March of 2014 for five years. It is not something new. For five years this has happened. You penalize the income earners, the savers who save, your parents, why should your parents be forced to speculate in stocks and in real estate and everything under the sun?"

On his view of overvalued stocks, including Facebook:

"I think it is to a large extent a fad. People they go on Facebook - what they do is they put pictures on and the only people that watch these pictures are themselves. They all want to be stars. It is a very distractive kind of occupation. I can't imagine that this would have a lot of value. I would rather own - I don't own it because I think it is very highly priced - I would rather own a company like Alibaba or Amazon or Google, than Facebook, personally. This is my view. Other people have different views. That's what makes the market. Some people are buying it and some people are selling it.”

On overall market valuation concerns:

"I think we are in a gigantic financial asset bubble. But it is interesting that that despite of all the money printing, bond yields didn't go down. They bottomed out on July 25, 2012 at 1.43% on the 10-years. We went to over 3.0%. We're now at 2.85% or something thereabout. But we're up substantially. Now, this hasn't had an impact on stocks yet. In fact, it pushed money into the stock market out of the bond market. But if the 10-years goes to say 3.5% to 4.0%, then the 30-year goes to close to 5.0%, the mortgage rates go to 6.0%. That will hit the economy very hard."

 

"[The bubble] could burst before. It could burst any day. I think we are very stretched. Sentiment figures are very, very bullish. Everybody's bullish. The reality is they're very bullish because they think the economy will accelerate on the upside. But my view is very different. The global economy is slowing down, because the global economy's largely emerging economies nowadays, and there's no growth in exports in emerging economies, there's no growth, in the local economies. So, I feel that the valuations are high, the corporate profits have been boosted largely because of the falling interest rates."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
thismarketisrigged's picture

thank god for mr faber, a man who actually understands what is happening right now in this world, and a man who is not fooled into thinking everything is going great because fuckbook or twitshit r up 2 percent plus on a daily basis.

 

he is right, this thing will end very badly and it can be any day now. i hope that day is sometime this week.

knukles's picture

Goddamnit! 
See, this is exactly why America needs the biggest most powerful military juggernaut in the history of mankind, led by the most sensitive and caring leaders man's even had the pleasure to serve, so that we may be able to keep peace on the face of the earth, bring forth Natural Laws and Human Rights for all, be as a shining star for democracy, freedom of speech and assembly, small effective government and sensible foreign entanglements and expenditure.
And while we're fucking at it, let's make sure everybody on the earth and yet to be born are treated well, clothed nicely, nourished, with McMansion roofs over their heads, and a Volt charging in every 7 car garage, that no wild animals are prey for ornaments, trinkets or foodstuffs, that all men act as if they were created equally, live in altruistic harmony, vote freely for responsible representatives of their choice, that there are no energy shortages and clean water for all, fresh air and tasty SnoCones, no MSG in any foods let alone GMO's, that every child has a bottle of USDA Pure Organic Gluten Free Water, that there are no more wars, no mean police, all baby sitters are kind to children.  All women are placed on pedestals so men can look up their skirts... er, no that one's wrong.  All women have their hair and nails done weekly and depilatory back waxing at least monthly.  Paid for by the government.  That the industrial and information revolutions guarantee 80 hour holiday weeks, nobody works at all and if they do, it's only for nice people.  There are no taxes or fees. 
I mean fuck all, this is why America is great
And paying for everybody's s shit with printed money is a looter's game.

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Democracy is highly over rate, perhaps "spread democracy" is do more harm than is good. AmeriKa, winning heart and mind one bullet at time.

knukles's picture

Boris, I've just come back from running around the neighborhood beating on my chest, sweating profusely, screaming God Bless America shaking uncontrollably, pleading for Krugerrands from heaven, and warning everybody about the End of Days, Rapture and Bozo's Law (Assume it'll all be OK).  Nobody but the 100year old guy who lives next door to me who plays German Horst Wessel music late at night and struts around with a small burlap sack of teeth on his belt pays any attention to me.  The sheriff hasn't even come.  We are lost.

Calmyourself's picture

Knukles you and Boris funny mans, kill you last..

Oh regional Indian's picture

Marc Fable's warnings, served hot out of thighland.

All things considered though, one has to realize that this year has a special feel to it. If ever we came into a new gregorian with nary a silver linng in sight, this one has to be it.

The Indian Index is scaling new multi-year highs, especially for IT outsourcing stocks....which is such a joke, because it is all just hot money being flooded here (by the big banks/insurance companies) to bloat the middle class, nothing else. People are being full salary to sit on the bench, for up to two years at times.

What could go wrong in such an efficient capitalist construct?

ori

http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/zion-in-sochi-2014/

BLOTTO's picture

The power of the illusion is overwhelming...the masses cant fathom that its this corrupt, perverted - and on purpose. Thats a massive blow to the noodle.

 

gmrpeabody's picture

Apparently, Knukles, you have a good supply of whisky...;-)

Haywood Jablowme's picture

I like my gold just as much as the next guy but you can't put a windfall tax on my bitcoins. 

Diversify BIATCHES

fonestar's picture

Mr. Faber doesn't understand the beauty, the power and the awe of Bitcoin (which is somewhat strange as we're the same age).  Bitcoin is the tax collector's worst nightmare and I would very much disagree with him on the point of competion.  Bitcoin simply blows gold, silver and platinum out of the water.

GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

 

Prefers Physical Gold To Bitcoin

 

No batteries required.

fx's picture

There are already some 30-odd other varieties of sh!tcoin available. Heaven knows how many are going to follow and what other kinds of technologically more advanced stuff comes up. The way Sh!tcoins are "mined" is in itself a giant waste of resources. At some point, the various clone-sh!tcoins may become interchangeable - now that would be fun. having virtual exchanges of virtual currencies with all transcations also settled in virtual currencies. virtually perfect nonsense, so to speak.

PT's picture

Say what you like but please scrap the "waste of resources" argument.  Gold can't talk.  Most gold is dug out of the ground, using toxic chemicals to refine it, so that it can be stored in a hole in the ground, surrounded by guards 24/7/365.  A tiny bit gets used in the electronics industry.  You'll probably find some minor use for the numbers discovered by bit coin too.  Just because the average yob doesn't use the bitcoin numbers for anything useful.  The average yob does fuck-all with gold too, apart from adorning his gf with it in the hope of getting a root, which he could get without gold anyway if he bothered to learn how.  Is moving a tonne of dirt so you can have 2 grams of gold really a sensible part of life?

Apart from that, I have no problems with gold - stack on if you can, and I have no practical view on bitcoin - it might crash to zero, it might hit a permanently high plateau, it might oscillate for ever for all I know.  Just don't tell me it's a waste of resources unless you can explain why gold isn't.

 

OceanX's picture

I interpreted his comment on competition to mean other crypto-currencies.  I'm sure there are well over a 100 and they seem to sprout like mushrooms...   Personally, I think it is too early to tell which ones will last.  (I think there is room for dozens, but...) I remember when all the kiddies were on MySpace.

OceanX's picture

I interpreted his comment on competition to mean other crypto-currencies.  I'm sure there are well over a 100 and they seem to sprout like mushrooms...   Personally, I think it is too early to tell which ones will last.  (I think there is room for dozens, but...) I remember when all the kiddies were on MySpace.

fx's picture

They can tax it in good, old fashioned dollars. They may accept your Bitsh!ts too, if you haven't got the dollars though.

samcontrol's picture

I like Faber , but immigration hugging him when entering the USA,is HUGE bullshit, that just doesn't happen.

fonestar's picture

Gold is the preferred currency when SHTF.

 

I think you meant gold was the preferred currency when SHTF?  Face it, in today's advanced technical service-sector economy people no longer relate to oldcoin.  It isn't hip, cool and lacks the wow! factor that really lets you push or dump it on your mark.  Young people today aren't going to sit around waiting for your Wells Fargo wagon carrying gold bars to show up either.  If someone doesn't pay for their item immediately and if I don't get my goods from a seller on eBay immediately, I am leaving negative feedback and possibly harassing or spamming them.  There's just no comparison between gold and Bitcoin in my view.

akak's picture

You're slipping, Phoneystar.

Just like MillionDollarBonus before you, you are sliding from an outrageous and irritating, if marginally believable, dogmatism into downright over-the-top absurdity which only shows you up for the anti-Bitcoin troll-within-a-troll that you actually are.

Crap.  And just when you were getting REALLY funny, too.

Volaille de Bresse's picture

Yes : when the SHTF in no time we'll move from a highly technological paradigm (robot trading, ETF's VISA cards) to a barbaric one ("I'll swap you this for that, man"). 

 

Of Bitcoin and gold which currency is the most robust? Easy to tell... Imho you can bet some of your savings on BC but you invest most of what you have in gold. 

RaceToTheBottom's picture

Lagavulin.....  There is no substitute

fonestar's picture

Thats a massive blow to the noodle.

If you aren't with Satoshi, you can blow your own noodle.

samcontrol's picture

dood , you are boring the fuck out of us with your shitcoin and satoshit..

Marc my words, you will end up looking like your pic( i suspect you are half way there). ((plus de merde))

caShOnlY's picture

which is such a joke, because it is all just hot money being flooded here

sad isn't it? your a "whore nation" to the FIAT of the west! and when they are done with you they discard you like a used condom. 

But you do enjoy it!!  moan for us, India; MOAN!!! 

(at least some buy gold with the scraps of "MONEY")

a growing concern's picture

Damn, I'll have one of whatever you're having tonight.

fonestar's picture

Ghost chili stuffed with bath salts?

Keyser's picture

Too bad I can't buy some puts on democracy. 

 

Obchelli's picture

If you want you democracy you can keep your democracy

spinone's picture

Boris, in america Corporations are people, and Money is free speech.

booboo's picture

Try again, The Court never said corporations "were people"

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion[29] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."[30]

Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment (and the Court) does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.[2] The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.

The majority overruled Austin because that decision allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity. Additionally, the majority argued that Austin was based on an "equality" rationale – trying to equalize speech between different speakers – that the Court had previously rejected as illegitimate under the First Amendment in Buckley. The Michigan statute at issue in Austin had distinguished between corporate and union spending, prohibiting the former while allowing the latter. The Austin Court, over vigorous dissent by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Sandra Day O'Connor, had held that such distinctions were within the legislature's prerogative. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, however, the majority argued that the First Amendment purposefully keeps the government from interfering in the "marketplace of ideas" and "rationing" speech, and it is not up to the legislatures or the courts to create a sense of "fairness" by restricting speech.[29]

The majority also criticized Austin's reasoning that the "distorting effect" of large corporate expenditures constituted a risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption. Rather, the majority argued that the government had no place in determining whether large expenditures distorted an audience's perceptions, and that the type of "corruption" that might justify government controls on spending for speech had to relate to some form of "quid pro quo" transaction: "There is no such thing as too much speech."[29] The public has a right to have access to all information and to determine the reliability and importance of the information. Additionally, the majority did not believe that reliable evidence substantiated the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption, and so this rationale did not satisfy strict scrutiny.

The majority opinion relied heavily on the reasoning and principles of the landmark campaign finance case of Buckley and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, in which the Court struck down a broad prohibition against independent expenditures by corporations in ballot initiatives and referenda.[29] Specifically, the majority echoed Bellotti's rejection of categories based on a corporation's purpose. The majority argued that to grant First Amendment protections to media corporations but not others presented a host of problems, and so all corporations should be equally protected from expenditure restrictions.

The Court found that BCRA §§201 and 311, provisions requiring disclosure of the funder, were valid as applied to the movie advertisements and to the movie itself.[29]

The problem with "free speech" is allowing the government to be the final arbitrator in defining what IS free speech and the hoops you must jump through to be an advocate of an issue or person under threat of penalty or imprisonment. Try starting a PAC for Ron Paul or any cause that threatens the power structure and prepare for an anal probe, one uncrossed "T" or one undotted "i" in the reams of forms you are dictated to produce will land you squarely in the hot seat.

The effect of all these campaign finance laws (many were shot down by the court) you cheered for and got were to only silence you. What? you think the health care law was written by big pharma and insurance companies but the campaign laws were written by benovolent grandmothers? But people are easily fooled when the proposed law named the Save the Kittens and Whales Act of 2014 really turns out to be a federal law permitting agents of the state to go house to house checking on the welfare of your pets and funding the legal expensed of  JPM "rogue traders"

gmrpeabody's picture

It ain't polite to cut and paste five pages of crap to make a single point.

booboo's picture

well ms Vanderbilt obviously it does because retards still misunderstand the courts decision. You may want to stick to dining etiquette and stay out of fight club Jr.

fonestar's picture

It ain't polite to cut and paste five pages of crap to make a single point.

 

Why not?

Ranger4564's picture

Same fucking reason you believe in capitalism, effort of the author deserves to be properly attributed for any compensation, now or in the future. You have no right to someone else's work anymore than you have a right to their money. Even if you perceive that work to be in the open ether. It's posted on someone's site and you're obligated to link to that site, not copy paste from that site.

Anyway, this lapse in logic is why I know the believers in capitalism are merely self serving, not morally bound to some rigor of socio-engineering.

TheReplacement's picture

"Try again, The Court never said corporations "were people"

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion[29] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."[30]

Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that because the First Amendment (and the Court) does not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television, and blogs.[2] The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.

The majority overruled Austin because that decision allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity. Additionally, the majority argued that Austin was based on an "equality" rationale – trying to equalize speech between different speakers – that the Court had previously rejected as illegitimate under the First Amendment in Buckley. The Michigan statute at issue in Austin had distinguished between corporate and union spending, prohibiting the former while allowing the latter. The Austin Court, over vigorous dissent by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Sandra Day O'Connor, had held that such distinctions were within the legislature's prerogative. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, however, the majority argued that the First Amendment purposefully keeps the government from interfering in the "marketplace of ideas" and "rationing" speech, and it is not up to the legislatures or the courts to create a sense of "fairness" by restricting speech.[29]

The majority also criticized Austin's reasoning that the "distorting effect" of large corporate expenditures constituted a risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption. Rather, the majority argued that the government had no place in determining whether large expenditures distorted an audience's perceptions, and that the type of "corruption" that might justify government controls on spending for speech had to relate to some form of "quid pro quo" transaction: "There is no such thing as too much speech."[29] The public has a right to have access to all information and to determine the reliability and importance of the information. Additionally, the majority did not believe that reliable evidence substantiated the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption, and so this rationale did not satisfy strict scrutiny.

The majority opinion relied heavily on the reasoning and principles of the landmark campaign finance case of Buckley and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, in which the Court struck down a broad prohibition against independent expenditures by corporations in ballot initiatives and referenda.[29] Specifically, the majority echoed Bellotti's rejection of categories based on a corporation's purpose. The majority argued that to grant First Amendment protections to media corporations but not others presented a host of problems, and so all corporations should be equally protected from expenditure restrictions.

The Court found that BCRA §§201 and 311, provisions requiring disclosure of the funder, were valid as applied to the movie advertisements and to the movie itself.[29]

The problem with "free speech" is allowing the government to be the final arbitrator in defining what IS free speech and the hoops you must jump through to be an advocate of an issue or person under threat of penalty or imprisonment. Try starting a PAC for Ron Paul or any cause that threatens the power structure and prepare for an anal probe, one uncrossed "T" or one undotted "i" in the reams of forms you are dictated to produce will land you squarely in the hot seat.

The effect of all these campaign finance laws (many were shot down by the court) you cheered for and got were to only silence you. What? you think the health care law was written by big pharma and insurance companies but the campaign laws were written by benovolent grandmothers? But people are easily fooled when the proposed law named the Save the Kittens and Whales Act of 2014 really turns out to be a federal law permitting agents of the state to go house to house checking on the welfare of your pets and funding the legal expensed of  JPM "rogue traders"

Because.

Normalcy Bias's picture

Perhaps update is in order. AmeriKa now spread love of democracy and freedom one Hellfire at a time. Kill one 'terrorist,' and create 50 more at same time. Good for business.

TheReplacement's picture

Democracy is bad.  Representative Democracy is bad.  Despite that, it is better than any other form of government ever devised.  Human nature is a high hurdle to get over for all of the forms of government, including no government (literally an impossible concept - who would enforce that?).

It was great for a while.  Then it got kind of bad for a while but the Nazis, Japanese, and then the commies were worse.  Now they all have fallen away and we are wobbling like a bent wheel rolling down an empty street.  You just can't miss it now.

It could be better.  It could be worse.  It'll probably go through both phases over time.  Clearly, worse is next.

At least we aren't French.  Which is nice.

RaceToTheBottom's picture

"From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."

newbie vampire's picture

Hey Knukles, how do I vote you for POTUS ?  And is Janet gonna send me my own printing press or do I have to wait in line like all the other peons.

MeMadMax's picture

We already have evidence that a very large chunk of the accounts on FB/Twitter are either fake or inactive or whatever...

It's a fad is right.

fonestar's picture

Fad's come and go, eventually the kids will grow out of it.

akak's picture

Does that mean that your bitcoin-'mining'-gizmoes are going to be stashed away in an old cardboard box in your basement next year, never to be fondled again?

GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

Fad's come and go, eventually the kids will grow out of it.

 

So how many bitcoins will you give me for my Beanie Babies?

superflex's picture

Beanie Babies were so 1990's

The pendulum has swung back and Cabbage Patch Kids are the new currency.  

It's like the new reality show, Keeping up with the Satoshi's.

Pure BS for an ignorant and gullible populace.

TeamDepends's picture

You heard it here:  Bell-bottoms are back!

roadlust's picture

Still trying to figure out what Faber actually does (besides manage his hair in Thailand, and pontifcate, half asleep, on a webcam at CNBC). 

When he says "buy" and something actually goes up, within a year or so, wake me up.

ReactionToClosedMinds's picture

many identify Faber as a catalyst (or one of them) when he said equity markets had severely oversold at end of February 2009

yup ....go look it up.

Faber has saved me, & made me, a lot of money over the decades>>>