@Wayne

I often wonder what "independence" was won in 1783. Of course, none to speak of for any of the non-white populations of America....

What of the white males? Was there a difference significant enough to justify the cost in blood and treasure? To the extent that there was a significant difference, for how many years did this last? And might the difference been achieved, as it was elsewhere in the empire, in a less violent manner?

What of the last 100 years. Is the life of the average middle-class American significantly different than the life of the average Brit? The poor Americans even got dragged into the Brit's wars when there was no reason for this. What of independence?

The independence seems to be no more than the independence of a new class of rulers to kick out the old class. And of course, this is only at the visible level. The money power, above the political class, is very likely the same.

I am not making any definitive statements here. Just food for thought.

From reading the interview I understand that Jim supports the rule of Central Banks but doesn't agree with the management due to their unwise economic analysis. Or at least thinks they are necessary to create currencies. He speaks about the USD needing an international competitor but only in the terms of another Central Bank currency. I would be interested to get his opinion on an open competition of currencies, ideologically vs. personal investments.

I can imagine that a truly open competition of currencies would greatly dampen his or any investors ability to predict the wise investments that have made them so much money over the years. Which is why the PE will never give up their monopoly of the creation of money and the people that understand and benefit from this control will not support a free market alternative. I tend to agree with the Hegalian dialect analysis suggested by Mark.

Some of Jim's investment advice is sound for the common man and I have come to the same conclusion he has but I am enacting them on a much smaller scale; owning my land for water wood and food, and owning my gold and silver as an insurance for my wealth. Of course I will not make billions and probably wont ever be interviewed by the news outlets or even the Daily Bell. The other advice of trying to ride the wave from the PE's next currency bubble (the Chinese Central banks Renimbi) I will have to pass on due to principle but I am certain there is money to be made if you are so inclined. Just know when to pull out cause like all monopoly currency bubbles they can not last.

Click to view link

Reply from The Daily Bell

"Of course I will not make billions and probably wont ever be interviewed by the news outlets or even the Daily Bell."

This is such a big deal?

@Bionic Mosquito

"Hamilton is one of the best examples, but any review of the actions of the first several Presidents, founding father's all, show examples of either a) going beyond what seems to be the clear intent of the Constitution, and/or b) not taking steps that would have limited the encroachments."

It would seem that this has been a big insider joke!

Let the renegade colonists think they have won, and control them through the money. You must admit that this is very funny, and a brilliant strategic move. Or we are just plain stupid, which is not as funny!

Was the US the first test of this principle?
""Give me control of a nation's money
and I care not who makes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild

What if that was the whole point? We were just lab rats all along?

Something to think about!

Reply from The Daily Bell

We believe Hamilton was possibly a Rothschild agent. We had an argument with Ingo Bischoff over this. He doesn't.

DB: "immediately violated every law that was to constrain it."

The whole point of "checks and balances" by the legal / political classes is that they know damn well their intent is to be predators (how can it be otherwise, they produce nothing and refuse to be "public servants", our employees). Fools believe that just because check and balance "laws" are on the books, that THEY are "constrained".

Just try to hold them to account in THEIR courts. THEY, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow will have their "alternate interpretations" and rationalizations of "neccessity" (Machiavailli) (rule of biased man on the bench). Which is why, we once had the "rule of law", because absolute power corrupts, absolutely and, no person is competent to judge the fate of another, unless that other has aggressed, in which case the aggressor has invited a proportional (defensive) response and reparations can be justly extracted for their victims:

Click to view link

Fact is, "we, the people" are the only and final "check and balance" against tyranny. Increasing social disorder, planetwide IS the "proportional (defensive) response of we, the people seeking reparations for THEIR victims and ourselves".

JR: "I would hope that everybody takes out some kind of insurance policy for their money"

What does he mean by this? Hedging?

Reply from The Daily Bell

Gold and silver, probably.

@Wayne

Hamilton is one of the best examples, but any review of the actions of the first several Presidents, founding father's all, show examples of either a) going beyond what seems to be the clear intent of the Constitution, and/or b) not taking steps that would have limited the encroachments.

@Ingo Bischoff

"This corruption was brought on by an 1866 law passed by the Republican Congress under Section 4 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution. It required open voice votes for the selection of U.S. Senators and was designed to gain insight to the selection process of U.S. Senators from the Southern States."

The 1866 law you cite was passed by senators appointed by the states. As I said, the states were neutered by Lincoln's war, and well before the 17th amendment. The neutering was sealed only one year before, in 1865. It didn't take long for the federal government to take advantage of the lesson taught by Lincoln and Grant. They did not have to wait until 1913. Six hundred thousand dead was lesson enough; no need to wait for an amendment to take effect, only papering what was already known to all in practice.

Reply from The Daily Bell

It was the Civil War that was the problem, not an amendment ...

I am a big fan of Jim Rogers but his view on conspiracy theories is questionable. People conspire all the time. All actions are results of people working together towards a common goal. Jim's partner was George Soros. Basically the first rule of the club is there is no club. But Jim is the good side of the club and is honest about everything else.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Yes, something seems to be going on there, but we appreciate his time and the courteous interviews he has given us ... This was certainly the best in our view.

@Bionic Mosquito

"However 1913 gave us the best culprit for the final nail in the coffin, being the Fed of course.

Some might say the turning point came in 1865, or 1861. The states were certainly disabused of any notion of checks and balance by Lincoln.

Others might say 1787. The camel got his nose under the tent.

"They wrote the U.S. Constitution to prevent [central government].""

Yep, this was engineered right in the beginning, by a man who was not a "natural"born" US citizen.

"Ever since 1791, when Alexander Hamilton got the Federal government to take over state debts, which his cronies had bought for pennies, and then when he got the Federal government to authorize a monopoly for a privately owned central bank, the Bank of the United States, the real Mob has been plucking the feathers of the public.

The goons are Congress and the enforcers in the executive branch. The victims are taxpayers and investors who think the goons represent them. The Mob is the corporate system that consents to a law against insider trading in order to gain protection from investors: new investors who are ready to buy shares at a good price from existing investors, so they can replace existing senior management." Dr. Gary North

"America may have won the Revolutionary War, but it has since lost one of the main things it fought for: the freedom to create its own credit instead of having to beg for credit from private banks at a usurious cost."

Put simply, we never got free of the City of London. Talk about winning the battle and losing the war!

@ Bug

"If state appointment of senators was an effective tool for controlling the central state, how was it possible that the states gave up this tool? Either they were forced to do so, unable to prevent it, or too stupid to see the consequences."


Ah...thank you for another great opportunity to answer some historical questions.


The general corruption which plays out in the symbiotic relationship between U.S. Senators and the big FED banks, was mirrored by the corruption which existed in most state legislatures when selecting the two U.S. Senators for their state. This corruption was brought on by an 1866 law passed by the Republican Congress under Section 4 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution. It required open voice votes for the selection of U.S. Senators and was designed to gain insight to the selection process of U.S. Senators from the Southern States.


While secret ballot voting for U.S. Senators prevented, or at least reduced corruption, open voice vote selection actively encouraged it. Toward the end of the 19th Century, corruption in the selection of U.S. Senators was rampant in every other state. Some state didn't even send U.S. Senators for several years.


Enter the "Progressive Movement" made up of many of the later immigrants from the Scandinavian countries and from Germany which wanted to remove the corruption in state legislatures by calling for amendments to require the popular election of U.S. Senators and to more equally distributing wealth through a national "income tax". Both of these measures appeared to present benefits to central bank thinking. Consequently, the "Progressive Movement" clandestinely was heavily supported by the big money center banks.

The big money center banks were losing out with the Aldridge Bill in the U.S. Senate, as well as a subsequent Bill which favored their interests. The 1913 FRA instead enshrined "commercial" banking and the gold standard, not "central" banking.

However, Benjamin Strong in the 1920s used the 16th Amendment to justify his Federal Open Market Operations, and the 17th Amendment enabled the FED to buy the votes of the majority of U.S. Senators which by 1934 were all popularly elected and could not be recalled by their state legislature. This popularly elected U.S. Senate established FED central banking.

Now, do you see how the state legislatures were stupid enough to be pressured to ratify the 16th and the 17th Amendment. We're dealing with typical politicians which were pressured by the "Progressive Movement" financed by "big bank money". Don't think the separate states haven't regretted these ratifications made in 1913, especially with the decline of the USD/FRN and with Obama Care. They are in the courts now to gain what they could easily have accomplished had they not thrown away their voice in the U.S. Government.

BTW, I am happy to let you have a copy of the proposed amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment.

@ DB

"As far the 1970's rupture with the gold standard goes, for this analysis of yours to work you'd have to explain how the US and the West hit the wall in 1929 with a gold standard in place ...."

----

You have given me no greater pleasure, than the opportunity to answer this question for you.

Under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the commercial banking system organized under the Federal Reserve System was authorized to create the "redeemable" Federal Reserve Note currency only against gold and "Bills of Exchange" (See Paragraph (a) and Paragraph (c) of Section 14 of the original FRA). The monetization of "Anticipation Bills" (U.S. Treasuries or other debt) was specifically prohibited. When in the early 1920s the U.S. economy entered a recession period (to explain the recession would distract from my answer here), the NY FED under the presidency of Benjamin Strong violated the 1913 FRA by conducting "Federal Open Market Operations" (creating a bond market) and thereby monetizing U.S. sovereign debt. This was strictly prohibited under the 1913 FRA and the NY FED was breaking the law. However, Benjamin Strong had completely neutralized the Federal Reserve Board as the oversight body of the U.S. Congress, and Congress never objected. Furthermore, the power exercised by the big money center banks kept the other eleven Federal Reserve Regional Banks from objecting to the rogue acts of the NY FED.

Soon, the extra currency created by the NY FED in monetizing sovereign debt, created a huge real estate bubble in Florida real estate. This bubble was quickly followed by a bubble in the equity markets. All the while, one USD/Federal Reserve Note was still redeemable into 1/20.65 of an ounce of gold. When the population started to have doubt value of the accounting standard of the Federal Reserve Note, the result was the 1925 Florida real estate bust, followed by the 1929 stock market crash.

All the while, the Federal Reserve Note was still legally required to be exchanged for 1/20.65 ounces of gold by the Federal Reserve System. When banks no longer could or were willing to exchange FRNs for gold in the early 1930s, FDR helped them out by first declaring a bank holiday and then prohibiting people from holding gold.

When the U.S. Congress ex-post-facto authorized the rogue acts of the NY FED in conducting FOMOs started in the 1920s by adding in 1934 Paragraph (b) to Section 14 of the original FRA, it created today's FED central banking system and killed "commercial banking".

Now, do you see how the US and the West hit the wall in 1929 with a gold standard in place ....???

Reply from The Daily Bell

"violated the 1913 FRA"

Ha, this is exactly our point, Ingo! You yourself have just explained how this institution, once empowered, immediately violated every law that was to constrain it.

What on earth gives you the idea that government, large or small, (and US states are NOT that small) provides a solution to any money problem?

If you would advocate for stateless (private) money without a state-fixed standard, and a private accounting standard, as well, your intellectual stance would be admirably defensible. If, on taking that stance, a reality-based movement began that vitiated your preferred private-market approach with state involvement, well that might be preferable to no implementation at all ...

But your intellectual stance, as you have argued it here over and over, gives up the high ground right from the start, arguing for state involvement immediately on numerous levels.

It is a theoretical and intellectual non-starter. It may be the way real-life operates, but theoretically the state always cheats and damages even good concepts. (As you have just shown again above.)

The best government governs least. It only took a ten or 15 years before the Fed, a private monopoly operating under the color of federal law, began to break its constraints and eventually caused the crash of 1929 and helped cause the subsequent Great Depression.

State solutions are solutions of force. You simply shouldn't argue for them theoretically. You shouldn't. It doesn't "hold water."

DB: "...and nothing is ever as it seems."

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, unbenown to most, the grim reaper of "Mathematics of Rule" is doing the heavy lifting of reality accounting, insuring that consequence is and always will be the sum of actions:

Click to view link

Opinions are irrelevant when dealing with reality. It just is, independent of how one may think or feel about it.

So, rather than listening to and "considering" what "the man behind the curtain" is saying, consider what he does. Then, you will know him.

Ingo Bischoff on 4/3/2011, I'm listening and your spot on, but it's not going to matter! Watch! p.s. We're in the minority and this, although just about over, will be our doom! Watch!

Jim Rogers: "I am still optimistic about the future of agriculture, but I don't know about how little known that forecast is at this point."

--Hmmm. So what do we know about the tendency of governments to meddle in agriculture as through subsidization? And can this meddling be predicted? For the well-connected, the answer is yes.

JR: "There are plenty of ways to invest in agriculture..."

--Indeed. One way is by investing in subsidized agribusiness. Another was demonstrated a few centuries ago by a political phenomenon called enclosure. Perhaps there are others. For instance, one might speculate in land and lease it to farmers, esp. subsidized ones. Still another way is to know in advnce when the tax burden on real estate will be shifted away from real estate and on to other wealth and to time one's speculations accordingly. Or one might takke advantage of political means to cartelize the distribution of water, of which farmers use plenty.

JR: "There are going to be shortages of food and this will continue. As I said before, my portfolio is in commodities and currencies on the long side."

Let's hope that the shortages are short-lived and not too acute. Now, he's long on currencies, of which the price he expects to fall sharply, not to rise sharply, esp. in terms of commodities. That's an interesting hedge for someone who's long on commodities, too, as his other remarks suggest.

JR: "...you can never be 100% sure of anything."

--Not about anything? Is Jim certain that he exists? Maybe there's a small chance that he merely imagines that he does, but I doubt that he'd believe that for even a minute.

JR: "It's called, RGREI, Rogers Global Resources Equity Index. It offers diversity of choice for the people wanting to invest in natural resources."

--What are the prospects for coal and oil in the universe of "Atlas Shrugged"? John Galt's plan to put oil and coal producers out of business is moving along nicely, and once he's put the power companies out of business with his strike, he'll be well-positioned to scoop up their distribution networks dirt cheap. It's difficult to see how demand for coal and oil could return to prestrike levels, for Galt's generators don't need them.

DB: "...and nothing is ever as it seems."

‒ No argument there.

@Ingo Bischoff

"Central government is an antithesis to Natural Law. It does not work. The founding fathers knew it. They wrote the U.S. Constitution to prevent it. In 1913, their good work was negated with the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments. Why does no one point out this fact?"

But Ingo, you point this out regularly! You are certainly someone.

That central government does not work is clear; you will, of course, get no disagreement from me.

That will be the extent of our giddy feelings towards each other today, I am afraid.

The 16th and 17th amendments were not the turning point. I will remind you again the 17th amendment was ratified before the 17th amendment took effect. Yes, a silly statement on my part. But consider it: the states were unable to prevent this 9in your view) great usurpation of power at a time when they held this power of appointing the senate, a power you hold in high esteem for preservation of the Republic. If state appointment of senators was an effective tool for controlling the central state, how was it possible that the states gave up this tool? Either they were forced to do so, unable to prevent it, or too stupid to see the consequences. In any case, it demonstrates the states were effectively neutered already by 1913.

However 1913 gave us the best culprit for the final nail in the coffin, being the Fed of course.

Some might say the turning point came in 1865, or 1861. The states were certainly disabused of any notion of checks and balance by Lincoln.

Others might say 1787. The camel got his nose under the tent.

"They wrote the U.S. Constitution to prevent [central government]."

A few of them might have, I doubt they all felt this way. Many of those same founders, when in later years were in position to check central government, acted in ways only to strengthen it. The Constitution, perhaps, was only a foot in the door to centralized government in the eyes of many who supported its acceptance.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain " that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

Written by Lysander Spooner well before 1913 and quite accurate at the time he wrote it.

Yes, one can say it is up to the people to prevent the government from abuse. This is quite so. The best way to keep a government in check is to not centralize it in the first place; not even for a few so-called limited functions as outlined in the Constitution. The belief that, once given life, it will somehow be kept in check was the most fundamental fallacy of the founders, at least of those few that truly desired a limited government.

Once given birth, central government of even the most limited type will find every avenue available to grow. To believe and expect otherwise is quite naive.

Reply from The Daily Bell

You have put your antenna on the crux of the problem we are having with Mr. Bischoff. We simply do not agree, hypothetically, that one should grant the state a theoretical "pass." Ingo Bischoff is emphatic in his anti-Leviathan rhetoric but then when it comes down to how he would structure society, he is tolerant of endless state intrusions. It leads to faulty historical analysis as well, which is a great shame as he is truly a wonderful economic historian when it comes to Real Bills.

In answer to your question, "What will the world look like in 10years?": Rogers predicts, "There will be many different governments and many different political parties and unfortunately more destruction from civil wars and outright wars".

In looking back 10 years, there may be a clue as to the progression over the next 10. However, changes will probably be much greater. There seems to be less acceptance of central planning (and central mandates). It follows that the super sized political entities will break. In this regard, note that this astute guy, Rogers, is living in a small city state. One might surmise that he is following his thought toward what may be the trend of the future. Sooner or later, we all may be.

Jim Rogers provided an interesting interview dealing with the effects of central banking seen throughout the world. He described the economic fallout of central banking practices rather than explain why it occurs.

We are where we are today, because after replacing the USD's fixed gold standard of value in the 1970s with the standard of value of the fluctuating Saudi (OPEC) price of crude oil, which is quoted exclusively in USD/FRN, the quantity of USD/FRN needed to finance the world's energy requirements was decided by the FED central banking system operated by the U.S. Congress and the big money center banks.

After it became impossible to create the sovereign debt obligations (congressional budget deficits) to print and supply the necessary amount of USD/FRNs supported by U.S. taxpayers, California's Prop 13 made it possible to use GSEs like "Freddie" and "Fannie" to circulate "deposit" currency in the form of GSE Bonds worldwide. This worked, because the U.S. made possible the circulation of this type currency in providing an "island" for everybody's exports.

First Japan, then Europe, then China built their currency systems on the same FED central bank model for creating their domestic currency system, having to resort to monetizing real estate values from the outset. Be it the BoJ, the ECB, the BoC or the FED, central government control depends on central banking.

Japan's real estate values collapsed in the 1990s, the collapse of real estate values in the PIGS and the Baltic States is monumental. China has empty high rise building and empty shopping malls galore, and the U.S. is just in the first half of a near total collapse of highly inflated real estate values. Witness the death of central banking. What will take its place? If we cannot agree on this soon, there will be hardship visited upon us which is yet unimaginable.

...and yet, the only talk is about checking inflation.

Central government is an antithesis to Natural Law. It does not work. The founding fathers knew it. They wrote the U.S. Constitution to prevent it. In 1913, their good work was negated with the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments. Why does no one point out this fact?

Reply from The Daily Bell

...and yet, the only talk is about checking inflation.

Yes Ingo, because at one point the Japanese palace grounds were worth more than the entire state of California. It was the bursting of the inflationary asset bubble that did Japan in. As far the 1970's rupture with the gold standard goes, for this analysis of yours to work you'd have to explain how the US and the West hit the wall in 1929 with a gold standard in place ....

Always listened to Sir John Templeton and Jim Rogers for over a decade. JIm and George Soros used to run The Quantum Fund. Nothing new to you all. Dealing in facts are more scientific than dealing in myths. JIms ear on the wire is spot on and accurate. Dealing in fact is more accurate math than dealing in fantasies. JIm lives in Singapore and his daughters are learning Manderin. Water is often refered to as The Blue Gold.

Jim Rogers, I don't doubt that you are a brilliant bussiness man, but China, Russia, India, or any other country that is not from the tribe of "Israel"(including Judah, whose name actually is NOT Israel: Gen. 48:16-will never surpass Israel in civil power and wealth!

It is written that way in the Bible and it is what it is! In fact, man's 6,000 year reign is about over, even though "Eve" is playing the same hand she played 6,000 years earlier called "intellectualizing!"

Did I explain that women naturally are better in verbal skills than men and men are naturally better in physical skills? Well, anyhow, next comes the Islamic caliphate being helped along by the terrorist group called the Chicago weatherman with Bill Ayers and company, who also did do what they promised in the 60's and that is to have put a black Marxist in as President over America, but it will not produce what they expected! That is the Two-Witnesses to punish Israel for 3 1/2 years! Watch! It's called Jacob's trouble! Yes, Obama is the "Anti-Christ"(Head Marxist) of Revelation! Watch!

"No, he's not that smart. The IMF is not that smart. They are not smart enough. That's a conspiracy theory that assumes these people could work together. No, he actually believes in what he is doing and he believes he's going to save us all."

Fantastic interview DB. I think this answer is notable and reasonable considering that each players' place in history is yet to be determined. We are witnessing a very serious intellectual failure whether or not Bernanke, Obama, Geithner, and the rest of the team aspire to middle management of the NWO. I think it's important to remember that everyone involved is human.

@V.Heddins

"Jim may have been reading the Book of Revelations on his water prediction. If I'm not mistaken, Chernobyl is the Russian word for wormwood, meaning bitter water."

Let's hope he wasn't. Let's hope that he and the rest of humanity will work to shape theories around established patterns and facts and not metaphor.