Exclusive Interview
Jim Rogers on Politics, Money Metals and How to Deal With an Endless Downturn
The Daily Bell is pleased to present another exclusive interview with Jim Rogers.
Introduction: Jim Rogers was a co-founder of the Quantum Fund, and is creator of the Rogers International Commodities Index (RICI). A native of Demopolis, Alabama, Jim Rogers was entrepreneurial from a young age. His first business venture at age five involved selling peanuts. He attended Yale University where he received a degree in history and then also Oxford University where he focused on philosophy, politics and economics. In 1970, Jim Rogers co-founded the Quantum Fund, possibly the most famous and successful fund of its type. Despite his success, he still makes media and television appearances, focused on the free-market principles he believes in and investments in all vehicles, long and short worldwide, that he espouses. He has issued many warnings about the West's debt-making profligacy and has concluded that China will likely constitute tomorrow's most powerful nation-state, in large part because of the energy and discipline of its billion-plus citizens. He is author of many well-received books including the best-selling Investment Biker, a free-market oriented meditation on life and investing.
Daily Bell: Hello, again. Let's jump right in. Where is gold headed – US$5000 an ounce? Is silver headed toward US$350?
Jim Rogers: I'm not smart enough to know something like that. I own gold and silver and there are a lot of bulls right now. If you look at open interest and see all the speculators who own gold and silver, that's usually a worrisome sign. I mean, I am not selling my gold and silver, I assure you, but I do worry about all these speculators getting in the market.
Gold and silver will both go much, much higher over the course of the bull market. The bull market has years to go. How high it will go, I don't know, but maybe read your newsletter – I read it everyday – and so read your newsletter and you will find out where gold and silver are going. I'm not smart enough to know things like that.
Daily Bell: The CFTC just dropped an investigation into silver manipulation. Is it manipulated day-to-day and does it matter?
Jim Rogers: A) It doesn't matter and B) I don't think it is. There are conspiracy theorists out there who say it's manipulated but I don't buy it. Mainly, I don't buy it because if it were manipulated like the conspiracy theorists say, it's been going on for 25 or 30 years. By now somebody would have told us. You can't keep a secret like that because then the conspirers would have to be all over the world. There would have to be tens of thousands of people. By now we would know about it. I'm a little skeptical.
It doesn't matter, as far as I'm concerned. Silver is going to go much higher. I own silver and if there's somebody trying to artificially suppress it, more power to them because in the end it's going to go up even higher. Whenever you artificially suppress something, once it finally breaks free, boy, does it skyrocket. Look at gold in the '70s. They artificially kept it down at $35 for a few decades. Finally the market said enough and it went up over 40 times.
Daily Bell: Who owns the gold in the world? Central banks? Individuals? Powerful families?
Jim Rogers: The statistics would probably indicate that the central banks are the largest owners of gold. I don't know. I haven't done my homework or checked any of those statistics but it certainly does seem that central banks, if you include the IMF and the US, own quite a lot of it.
Daily Bell: Is silver a better buy than gold right now?
Jim Rogers: As we just discussed, I see a lot of speculation, which gives me pause when I see the speculators in long tooth positions on the futures markets. But if I had to buy one today I'd buy silver, based on historic basis. Gold has been within a few percentage points of it's all-time high; silver is quite far from it's all-time high, 30 or 40%. So I would prefer to buy silver to gold but I am not buying either at the moment.
Daily Bell: What about paper gold and silver – ETFs and futures?
Jim Rogers: Well, I own some precious metals in the Rogers Index but I much prefer the physical stuff myself because I'm old-fashioned and simple-minded.
Daily Bell: How about mining stocks? Should people hold them or are they down for the count?
Jim Rogers: Well, with stocks, if you are a good stock picker you will certainly make a lot more in a stock than you will in the commodities itself but you have to be a good stock picker. Studies show that more money has been lost in gold mining stocks over the past century or so than any other sector, including railroads and airlines. You've got to be a good stock picker to buy gold stocks, silver stocks. You know, Mark Twain said the definition of a gold mine is a hole in the ground with a liar at the top. If you are a good stock picker, by all means, you'll make a lot more money but I don't usually buy gold stocks because I don't know enough and I'm not smart enough.
Daily Bell: Obviously you follow business cycles. Can you tell our readers how they work and who is responsible for them?
Jim Rogers: It doesn't make sense that anybody but central banks has been responsible for them in this past century or so. Central banks didn't always have so much power. Central banks used to be the lenders of last resort for the most part. People handed their own power over, in the past few decades, especially. Central banks, more than anything else, have had the main influence on business cycles in the past few decades. Mankind makes our own mistakes and we cause our own problems. People get exuberant for a while and they spend a lot of money, they add capacity and before you know it you have too much capacity and then you have a business cycle. There's nothing unusual about it; it's just the way mankind works.
Daily Bell: If there were no central banks would there still be business cycles?
Jim Rogers: Absolutely. I assure you there will always be business cycles, with or without central banks. We haven't always had central banks in world history but we will again in world history.
Daily Bell: Would they be as bad?
Jim Rogers: Now, that's a good question. In the old days, before the central banks had so much power, we used to have panics, and they were usually shorter term, of shorter duration. People would get too exuberant; you would have animal spirit and then the next thing you know, you have a panic. These were usually short and sweet. In 1907, they had the big panic in the US. Washington, New York, everybody got in a lot of trouble but then it didn't last very long.
That's the way the system is supposed to work. When people get in trouble, you clean out the system and then you start over. Competent people take over the assets, reorganize and start over. These days, with central banks and government, what happens is the central bank steps in to save everybody and instead of letting the system clean itself out the way that capitalism is supposed to work, the central banks mess it up, trying to save it. That's why the recession has lasted longer or the depression has lasted longer than it did before. So in answer to the question, yes, central banks make it worse not better.
Daily Bell: What do you think of pure fiat currencies like bitcoin?
Jim Rogers: I don't know anything about it. I heard the word but don't know how it works.
Daily Bell: What about the resurgence of Fabian currency ideas like those held by Silvio Gesell and Major Douglas?
Jim Rogers: This did not work in the past and it won't work now. Nobody wants to be a communist any more. Nobody even wants to be a socialist – but if they want to be a socialist, they want to be a rich socialist. Now, if the world gets into more economic trouble in the next decade or so you are certainly going to have more of that kind of ideology come to the fore again. People are going to be unhappy and they are going to look for answers.
Socialism sounds okay to people, especially people who are suffering. Will it work? NO! It's never worked. Communism and socialism have failed many, many times and the propaganda notions will get the better of people when things go wrong. I am sure you are going to have a resurgence of all kinds of-off-the-wall economic theories as things get bad but none of them are going to work in the end. They may come to power but they are not going to work in the end.
Daily Bell: We're probably in for massive price inflation at some point. When do you see that coming?
Jim Rogers: We already have inflation. Nearly every country in the world has acknowledged inflation. India, China, Norway, Australia – most acknowledge there is inflation except the US. The US says there is no inflation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has been misleading us for a long time. Anyone who shops knows there's inflation and it's getting worse. Whether it's education or entertainment or healthcare, anything, prices are going up. Worldwide inflation is going up and it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Daily Bell: Will 2013 be a good year, investment-wise? If not, why not?
Jim Rogers: Well, it depends what you are investing in. In cotton it may be a great year, sugar may be a great year, currency may be a great year, selling stocks short may be a great year. Bonds – I don't think it is going to be good for bonds.
Daily Bell: Let's switch gears. What are your thoughts on China these days?
Jim Rogers: China has been trying to slow its economy for three years and they seem to be successful at it. At the same time, as you know, you have the West with numerous problems, and since the West has ten times the size of China's economy, if you do business with the West you know there's a problem, if you're in China. If you're in real estate in China you probably have problems. The Chinese government has been trying to kill the real estate bubble for over three years now and it looks like they are successful. Some parts of the Chinese economy are booming and will continue to boom. If you are in agriculture or water treatment or air pollution you are making a fortune in China because the government is doing everything they can to clean up the situation.
So when you ask what I think about China, there are many aspects to that question. I think China is going to be the most important country in the 21st century. Over the next few months a lot of people in China are going to be bankrupt and some are going to boom.
Daily Bell: Is it destabilizing?
Jim Rogers: If you are in real estate development in China you are destabilizing if you go bankrupt. What is destabilizing are the American central banks. Again, I want to repeat that America and Europe are over ten times the size of the Chinese economy. It's hard for the Chinese economy to destabilize the world.
Daily Bell: What about Europe? Where is Europe headed?
Jim Rogers: Well there are many countries in Europe and some are doing better than others. Bulgaria is getting into a lot of agriculture and has shaped up its government. It's going to be in better shape than places like Greece, which has not shaped up its government, which continue to spend a lot of money. Some countries in Europe are going to have serious problems down the road. I doubt the European economy is going to do well in the next few years and I don't think the US is going to do well in the next year.
Daily Bell: Is austerity a workable solution?
Jim Rogers: Again, spending money you don't have is not a workable solution; eventually, you are going to run out of other people's money. Now, there's not really any austerity in Europe. When you look at the projections, every government in Europe shows higher deficits over the next year; nobody has real austerity. All of these countries are talking one thing but doing another thing. The debts continue to rise and that's not austerity.
Daily Bell: How about the US? Is the economy headed for a double-dip?
Jim Rogers: I'm not sure we ever got out of the last economic slowdown. Unemployment is higher than it's ever been in most of our lifetimes and it will continue to be higher. We will certainly continue to have economic problems in the US. I suspect 2013 and 2014 will be bad again in the world economy, and certainly in the US economy.
Daily Bell: Who's going to win the election?
Jim Rogers: I actually think Mr. Obama will win the election. It's very difficult to unseat a president in the US. I think the Republicans have only done it once in the last hundred years. Once you are in power you have a lot of money to spend, and Mr. Obama has a lot of money to spend in places like Ohio. His popularity is going up in Ohio because he's spending the money there. Because of that I suspect Mr. Obama will win. I didn't say it was good for America or good for the world but I suspect he will win.
Daily Bell: What happened to Ron Paul?
Jim Rogers: His campaign didn't win. He's willing to fight the central bank for all of us but he didn't win. It's still difficult in America to teach people about reality because most people, even educated, and most politicians have a different view of the world. They don't understand the real world; they don't understand economics or history. Ron does but it's hard to persuade people of that, as Ron clearly demonstrated.
Daily Bell: So you think Obama will win. What will that do to the American economy? Would Mitt Romney be any better?
Jim Rogers: No. They are both the same, as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney. One's from Boston and one's from Chicago. They both have the same view of the world and how the world works. These are the guys who got us into this situation. I don't know why the world thinks they can solve our problems. They are both going to make our problems worse.
Daily Bell: Is the world headed toward a kind of global depression?
Jim Rogers: As I said, if you are in Chinese real estate and you go bankrupt you are going to get some depression. But some parts of the world economy, like agriculture, are going to boom. Overall, I don't expect great things moving forward.
Daily Bell: Where are some monetary safe havens? Water? Food? Oil?
Jim Rogers: Agriculture – I am wildly bullish on agriculture. Water – I wouldn't own water. If you own water, if things get tough they are going to take it away from you. They will confiscate it and maybe put you in jail for being so outrageous as to own water.
Some countries I'm excited about. North Korea, Angola – there are countries where there are very exciting things going on. If you are a farmer you aren't going to know that Greece is going bankrupt. You are not going to care. You are too busy going to work every day to make money. If you are in water treatment it's the same thing.
Daily Bell: How are the nation-states around the world going to react to more economic difficulties? Are they going to continue to raise taxes and inflate?
Jim Rogers: They are going to inflate – that's all they know. They will print money. They will also put in motion the power to own other people. They will put on price controls and they will put on exchange controls; neither will work. It will make the situation worse but that's all they know. They will blame it on others for a while and then they will put in place measures that will make the situation worse. And eventually, we hope that somebody will come to their senses before we hit rock bottom and start the process over in spite of the politicians.
Politicians always look for the easy answer. That's one reason why socialism has a repeal periodically, socialistic kinds of measures, because people want the easy answer. But the easy answer is not going to work. The easy answer never works. They will try the easy way and make the situation worse.
Daily Bell: Are there going to be additional wars?
Jim Rogers: Oh, yeah. Throughout history there has always been war. There is no period in history where we didn't have wars of some sort. Politicians like to blame somebody and it's easier to blame foreigners, so as tensions rise people will blame foreigners more and more.
Also, I'm told throughout history when you have shortages of raw materials, that leads to strife and wars and we have shortages of raw materials developing which will be bigger and bigger. So we will have wars.
Daily Bell: How do you see the Middle East playing out? Are the US and NATO purposefully trying to destabilize the area? Is there some sort of plan to create a religious war?
Jim Rogers: I don't know if there is a plan. Maybe some Machiavellian types have a plan to stir up things and cause a war but I don't think any fellow has a plan to do that. The Israelis say they want to bomb Iran, which would cause a war, but I don't think any government has a plan to cause a war.
Now, will there be wars in the Middle East? That's a different question. These countries all seem to be making mistakes and when you have economic problems that always seems to lead to war and that's the right place for it. The players are making the mistakes and it seems inevitable.
Daily Bell: What should people do when faced with all these difficulties?
Jim Rogers: Be very careful. Study some history and study some economics and see how these things always play out in the end. Prepare yourself. Make sure you have a professional advisor and you should do okay. Make sure you have investments that will do okay. Move to a new country if you are worried about your own country.
Daily Bell: What are YOU doing?
Jim Rogers: Well, I own commodities and currencies. I short stocks. I teach my children Mandarin. Both of my children speak perfect Mandarin. Both English and Mandarin will be important in the 21st century, in my view. We moved to Singapore so my children could learn and speak Mandarin. That's how I'm living my life. If you talk to me in 30 years I'll tell you whether I'm doing it right or not.
Daily Bell: Are you writing any more books?
Jim Rogers: Yes. I have a book coming out in February called Street Smarts. I am wrapping it up right now. I just took photographs for the cover last week.
Daily Bell: Could you tell our readers what you like most about The Daily Bell and our style of analysis?
Jim Rogers: I read it every day so I must find something interesting about it.
Daily Bell: Any final points you want to make?
Jim Rogers: Be very careful. These are perilous times and it's going to get worse.
Daily Bell: Thanks for your time.
Jim Rogers: It's my pleasure.
We have one big agreement with Mr. Rogers and one disagreement. The agreement is about President Barack Obama – we also think he will be reelected. The disagreement is about China. Rogers thinks the downturn there is and will be patchy but we tend to believe it will affect a broad swath of Asia (not just China).
Of course, these are vital economies and no doubt will snap back. But monetary depressions can be relentless so we don't expect that China and Asia will be in any sense immune. These downturns have already started, from what we can tell.
We certainly agree with Mr. Rogers about Barack Obama and have written so in the past. This is one single party we're dealing with and it works just like British royalty – royalty that seeks an heir and a spare.
In this case, Romney is the spare and Obama is the heir, the designated one. The powers-that-be have a great deal invested in Obama after four years and we'd be very surprised if he lost.
As always, we enjoyed our time with Mr. Rogers and are pleased that he shared his thoughts with us again. We look forward to reading his book.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by ultraman on 10/14/12 06:47 AM
I'm sorry, maybe I'm in the minority on this, but I've never extracted anything of value from a Jim Rogers interview.
I hear that he is a genius but I don't get it.
I get more of value from any randon 5 miunte rant by Mr. Wile than a dozen "sit-downs" with Mr. Rogers.
 |
Posted by coldbeer on 10/14/12 09:13 AM
Boy, this guy sure doesn't know a lot. Then again maybe he's just being honest and not blowing smoke up our rears trying to look like he knows everything like so many others are doing like the ones that have been 100% certain advising everyone to short the market for the last 3000 points up.
I'm in depression myself, having gone from $40hr to no job. I finally started a small machine shop but I also do a lot of ebay and actually make good $ there despite some other blogger continually bashing it as "trinket selling".
Which reminds me... ... ..I wish more of these sites would discuss the upcoming USSC court-case that everyone says could outlaw Ebay, Craigslist, garage sales etc this has me in pure panic mode.
|
Posted by earnst on 10/14/12 10:55 AM
Jim Rogers keeps it simple. This is why he gets rich and economists impoverish others. The forest has always been full of trees. You can travel faster than light too.
|
Posted by DickFitz on 10/14/12 10:56 AM
Cold beer- what case? (scary) News to me!
|
Posted by victorbarney on 10/14/12 11:05 AM
Sounds to me, as though Jimmy Roger's has himself a little distorted with his love for Marxist China & if America keeps going down this same path to appease it's "gatherer's"(i.e., women & blacks), which also is our SUPER MAJORITY VOTING BLOCK(70plus %'er's), WATCH FOR A TOTAL FINANCIAL COLLAPSE THIS FALL, PROBABLY ALSO WILL BE A GOOD EXCUSE TO STOP OUR ELECTIONS. Just saying...
|
Posted by rbass on 10/14/12 12:18 PM
No conspiracy, anywhere? And he studied economics, history, philosophy... ..
Sorry, Mr. Rogers, the evidence is overwhelming, for anybody who cares to take a closer look.
He also needs to read Rothbard on business cycles... . he is so vested in mercantilism (see his views on China) he can no longer see the forest for the trees.
|
Posted by fabien on 10/14/12 12:48 PM
About the USSC court case; I wouldn't worry too much about your e bay business. This court case is about a big publishing company that is suing a grey market importer. The importer is a student in the US who came from Thailand. He remarked that study books from this publisher are much cheaper in Thailand and mobilized his family to send the books in the US and sold them on e-bay. What the publisher wants is to keep its ability to fix margins depending on the purchasing power in each country. This has nothing to do with private person to private person transactions in goods that are legally owned. If the USSC declares that such transactions should grant a royalty to the original producer, it means that you are never the owner in full. This is the end of private property (or what's left of it).
 |
Posted by dave jr on 10/14/12 01:11 PM
I like Mr. Rogers humbleness. It reminds me to work on my own arrogance. Damn that's hard! Ooops.
|
Posted by Danny B on 10/14/12 01:23 PM
Jim Rogers is a good guy but, he plays his cards
very close to his vest. He reminds me of Warren Buffet in a way. US GOV dumped 4 billion ounces of silver so that nobody would try to emulate JFK. It was painfully obvious that the price of silver would shoot up when the 4 billion ounces was gone. Buffet sold his silver at $ 7.00. WAY early,,, too cautious.
Click to view link
About Oct of 2005, the GOV silver ran out. I bought at $ 7.55,,,, just a few ounces.
Anyone who studies the silver market would NEVER have sold at $ 7.00.
The main reason that the West will fall and the East will rise is;
In the West, too many people expect GOV to be the source of their support and enrichment.
In the East, people expect hard work to be the source of their support and enrichment.
Hard work has gone out of vogue in the West.
|
Posted by banh on 10/14/12 01:31 PM
Jim Rogers is an opportunist just like the rest of us, but these guys who overlook things like Communism in Red China to fill their pockets have a clinical nature to their pursuit of wealth. Look at George Soros for example. He's actually contributed to the demise of governments and systems in order to fill his pockets after the crash. It's like a crow dropping a tasty carrot in the middle of a highway to lure the rabbits to their death. Road kill is an easier meal than putting your energy into a hunt.
Nobody wants to be a Communist or Socialist? Since when did those -isms fall out of favor? We're swimming in that socialistic trash. Why would China give up its Communist dictatorship when they've had the door to Capitalism kicked wide open by opportunistic multinationals and corrupt US politicians looking to fill their pockets from cheap labor and ignorant consumers?
|
Posted by banh on 10/14/12 01:34 PM
Hey, all these business crows sitting on the highway looking for easy money from failing systems have one thing in common. Money trumps people every time.
 |
Posted by expatriot on 10/14/12 02:48 PM
part 2
Rogers dodges the question about central banks? Individuals? Powerful families... as indeed this question as formed invites this dodge since it separates these three things... individuals being the heads of powerful families are one and the same thing (unless by individual DB means the few gold plate trinkets or coins most people buy which likely does not add up to a big percentage of what exists : thus I discount that idea as again it is not until one gets to a rather richer individual that one will find any serious personal stocks of gold)... and again... central banks as the DB has said many times are more and more tending to be "private central banks"...
So if they are private... this means central banks hav individuals of powerful families as owners and thus controllers : and of course thus benifactors... the key here however is his real answer concerning who has most of the gold : "I don't know". Indeed only the owners of gold knows! Seemingly central banks have become the worlds Wizard of Oz (indeed there is an interesting documentary on U tube called "The Secret of OZ" suggesting that the Wizard of Oz was written as a parody about gold standard vs a silver standard : right or wrong an interesting take with the idea that a gold standard would cause scarcity as indeed gold is scarce)...
However, as long as "we the people" do not know who owns our central banks or what assets they hold... we may be certain that "democracy" (if it survives at all) will function as a curve ball scam to make it seem that the powerless have some sort of say... when indeed they do not (not on the governing side : although as consumers people vote in mass every time they buy a product an. Here they have really enormous power : power to give their money to the big bank supported industrialist producers of name brands or to the local or small producers). The fault being simply that people accept and believe that man behind the curtain, fear him, are manipulated by him and then go check the football scores rather than the local town hall budget up though the national budget... to see who is stabbing who in the back, how or why... why ask? Why bother... que sera sera!
Last of all the idea that "nobody wants to be a communist anymore" : well that's rather sadly funny really! As indeed Obama is pushing hard to socialise america and somebody is still voting for this puppet Bozo (even if the majority comes from fixed machines). It is also suggested that as both communism and socialism (as someone suggested socialism being communism in first gear or at half speed)...
Marx himself (a bow tie wearer) suggested something to the effect that the day communism takes over, the capitalists will be selling tickets to the event. I suspect this to mean that communism is simply a form of capitalism where the capital belongs to the state (a system of absolute control) ... and the state belongs to a small secret elite. Indeed there are people out there with evidence suggesting that certain banks powerful bank rolled the Bolshevik revolution... and if this is so... It would also seem likely that Mao must have also had some sort of elite financial backers (the general culprit suggested being Kuhn, Loeb and Company)... and then writers such as Jung Chang suggests in : Mao, the Unknown Story, that Mao was helped into power by Stalin... which indeed seems both likley and thus suggests some sort of parallel is sources... i.e. banks as usual.
This of course raising the paradigme question is communism simply a major divide and conquer ploy of the bankster-gangsters to set up an eventual one world dictatorship? One thing is for sure... as a peoples government... bother the Lenon Stalin and Mao models murdered more of their own people than a dozen Hitlers each... which is not to suggest Hitler to have been Mr Nice guy either (it is simply some sort of hoax by omission that Hitler gets all the press while 2 much larger human tragedies don't get so much as one block buster Sound of Music style romantic Hollywood tear jerker) ... he too was put into power by bankers (perhaps even the same bankers or at least similar ones) ... and indeed I do not suggest that Hitler was innocent nor that the human tragedy he helped sponsor is a small one... I suggest only that there were 2 rather larger ones which one one mentions, no movies, nor press... a curious fact.
In short I find Jim Roger!s repeated and wily shield "I'm not smart enough to answer that question" more like a rather smoky ploy to defect certain arias he'd rather not implicate himself nor show his real thoughts : just as I find it rather a paradox that he reads the DB but uses the word "conspiracy theories" with it's negative connotations : while rather suggesting he does not at all believe in such at thing a "directed history" (although indeed even at the elite level to err is human : so it is likely that history does do it's own dance to some extent anyway)... and although indeed he is right on that Obama and Romney are the front and back door of the same bank... or the happy and sad face of drama (the happy face being the candidate one votes for) : the two bought and paid for puppets...
But then is it so simply 'oh well' that Ron Paul's "campaign didn't win" or was it it simply set up to fail as symbol that the american people do not care about it's constitution nor freedom (RPs rwo main stances) so that when it is taken away once and for all, people my shrug on the way to the guillotine machinery of world domination?
And indeed do we really know Ron was not cheated out of winning?
Being smart enough to ask the question yet indeed it takes more than smart to answer certain questions... however asking them is a good start! What is important is to provoke thinking... that is what opens doors.
Indeed "these are the guys that got us into this situation" is rather an oxymoron, as if you know both parties are the same party, then you must also know that the real bosses are indeed that hidden elite cabal behind the curtain... thus both public figures taking the blame are mere puppet fronts to the real people who indeed cause such problems (again Jesus, who or what ever he was, threw the money lenders out of the Temple because he knew debt is the road to human obligation & thus slavery) ... and likely via such abuses robbing humanity blind! And again... power corrupts...
Indeed people learn fast from the media... but the mass media lies to them (mostly through omission : after 5 minutes of world news & now for football scores... just after "Coke Adds Life") and people like to believe what is easy accessible and simple... hello P.T.Barnum's axiom "A sucker is born every minute". That's why 4 out of 5 dentists prefer to use poison to fight cavities... because only one out of 5 are smart enough to understand that fluoride is highly toxic thus obviously dangerous... however highly profitable for industry... Hi ho business as usual!
Obama, elected or not will indeed most likely be reinserted! Seems the more accurate verb...
As for Jim... well he is a free market speculator and that's neither good nor bad in my book (free market is good : speculation is generally making money off other's backs which is rather morally dubious really, legal or not)... better than some perhaps... but indeed in this world there is a great deal of grey in between good and evil... and the bow tie is unfortunately not quite enough to really know which way the boogie man really swings from the tree.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Wow. Thanks.
|
Posted by expatriot on 10/14/12 02:48 PM
Somewhere a long time ago I remember some one saying "Never trust anybody who wears a bow tie"... Indeed at some point as a student years ago I had a cool antique brown with white dots bow tie (it since got eaten by moths) which may well have been why I heard that warning...
Wikipedia has a page called
"List of bow tie wearers" including people like Karl Marx and Winston Churchill...
But indeed Wikipedia dons bow tie wearing as a "notable characteristic" and quotes the NYTime as saying : "A list of bow tie devotees reads like a Who's Who of rugged individualists." Well ! Just a bit of random thought (slightly comic) in response to the "Ultraman" comment below... Indeed concerning Jim Rogers, I have no opinion but do find a few anomalies in his logic... not concerning so much his investment ideas, but his basic vocabulary on over look.
First he jumps into his interview with the "poopooed" word "conspiracy theories" which as the DB points out is a general term of discredit : mainly to anybody who is out of the loop (right or wrong)... which of course would thus rather include the DB (which is indeed not main stream loop)... Yet JR reads the DB everyday! Indeed this term sounds rather paranoid but what it really refers to is "business as usual" which at elite levels simply rides like a hovercraft over law and morality... because law an morality are perhaps both inventions or at least tools of the elite, managed by them in their own favour. As such they sit above both.
Then his remark concerning the price control about silver, saying that "by now we would know about it", may be well founded too... as indeed first the idea that the elites have absolute control is obviously never the case for two reasons... first, most likely not all global elites are likely in the same camp... which is to say "power struggles" are certainly alive and well near the top... But secondly because indeed although a certain group of generational super rich elites seem to brag about a cabal to form a NWO or one world government & money system... and indeed this cabal certainly is big on control in all sectors on a world scale... and indeed the very notion that they may not be far off toward getting what they want (likely everything and some like all spoiled rotten children) ... the fact is they are not there yet ! Which is to say that controls as there my be does not assure that these controls always work or simply don't at some point spin out of control!
The elites at the top who likely vie for the creation of a one world order (and some of them admit to this openly) have two impossible hurdles to cross : neither of which make them less dangerous to humanity. First they have each other to compete with... Indeed big fish eats little fish... but what about when there are two or more really big fish?! That must certainly be a question they have a rather deep time in dealing with... However yet bigger than elite vs elite is the real power in the world... which simply are the world's "real people" who are not elites... The elites are elite because they have figured long ago how to harness this to most extents... the biggest method being the creation of the very thing that commerce needs to work : fiat standards of exchange called 'money' (which is not to say that a gold standard would solve anything as again these elites likley have most of the gold hoards). Hello the proliferation of private central banks! The key word here being "private"! This word is usually left out, but I suspect now that this is rather the growing case and likely the root of the problem.
What the elites have harnessed comprises of everyone from illiterate peasants who work the factories and fields (thus a slave class motor to create wealth) through the semi educated middle class (again creators of wealth) to the quite well educated Bourgeois who indeed may well serve a the sort of middle man between the creators of wealth and the OWNer (those who harness the rest) of our respective societies (the elite)... Jim Rogers would likely fall into this category which may explain the way he partly dodges certain subjects.
As the DB points out every day, the elite have power to get out the misleading messages they desire to use to keep the wool firmly pulled over the sheeples eyes... and this no doubt bites deep into the fabric of how our societies or peoples perceive... or more likely fail to perceive what is true or false (my 16 year old son, for example, will not read a word of the DB because he thinks it to be a "conspiracy theory" tabloid... and his poor old man a misguided fool to not trust the powers that be as being both right and honest working hard for the public good : by the people for the people : but indeed children are conformists which tend to exclude those who "think different" : so I leave him be)... but indeed, in the long run... although there will likely always be elite classes... the real power is in the hands of the people. The problem being that 99.9% of them do not understand this (which is exactly what the elite work to achieve) and have the self defeating attitude summed up by "what can 'little me' do about such things?"
The funny part is if people used the grey stuff in their heads they could do an awesome lot... first by reading the fine print on what they consume and stop consuming big name brand things full of harmful ingredients... that alone would send the elite into a tail spin... as most of what has shelf life in the supermarket is simply not real food... and then there are cosmetics! Look younger & die younger : use this junk on your skin ! Ans so on...
The very fact the elite work so hard to distort or cover up what goes on on the scale they work with is rather power proof that their greatest fear is not each other, but the very humanity they work so hard herding to work for them : so that the creation of wealth which the people produce thus stays out of the people's pockets and ends up into theirs...
 |
Posted by Just John on 10/14/12 03:16 PM
Be very, very careful. Live simply, grow food, be and think local, and something else... ALOHA! There will always be someone more lolo and akamai than you are. Be at peace with yourself and frack the rest.
|
Posted by dave jr on 10/14/12 04:08 PM
lolo (local?) and akamai (?)
 |
Posted by Thomas Molitor on 10/14/12 04:40 PM
Jim Rogers is an empty bow-tie. I've been an investor in his commodities fund for seven years now and I am underwater still. I don't know what his investment horizon is in commodities but it appears to me it will negatively outlast my lifetime. He said China was in a "never-ending expansion trendline" and now he's talking about a Chinese slowdown. Last year he said that "water is the next gold" and now he says he wouldn't touch water as an investment. He plays the dumb-as-a-fox southern gentleman, but the fact is, the one and only good bet he ever made was joining up with Soros to start the Quantum Fund and make enough money to keep him in silk bow-ties forever. Ever since Soros, he has devoted his fevered-ego life to TV appearances (someone has to yank away his access to Skype!) as a "commodities guru" and written boring investment travel books larded with wrong advice. Enough with this guy.
|
Posted by dimitri on 10/14/12 05:08 PM
Is Jim Rogers the type of man who wears suspenders AND a belt?
Reply from The Daily Bell
Bow ties?
|
Posted by PCRoger on 10/14/12 06:44 PM
I have to agree to a degree with ultraman; Mr. Rogers either doesn't want to tip his hand, move markets, or have someone at a point in the future say he was wrong. Or maybe he doesn't want to be accused of giving investment advice without the proper registrations.
For 99.9% of the people, listening to him will not offer any specific advice, other than to become a farmer, which only works in the U.S. if you have inherited 5000 or more acres.
Nonetheless, he is enjoyable to listen to or read.
|
Posted by Just John on 10/14/12 06:58 PM
lolo is crazy and akamai is perfect or good or best.
Better than you or worse than you will always exist, it is not what is important. What is, is how you react and act in this world.
|
Posted by mcgiffid@gmail.com on 10/14/12 09:01 PM
Jim is interesting to listen to, but he is wrong on China in many ways and really brings nothing new to the table. I read Martin Armstrongs material too, and he is way off many many times. The same is true of Peter Schiff.
I only listen to Andy Guase. He's never wrong.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Never!
|
|
