Jim Rogers: "America is more communist than China"

Quote from Streetwise:

And what does Jim do , he moves to Singapore which is controlled by the same communist bankers that the US is .
More...

Singapore is ranked top 5 among most honest governments in the world.

Yes, it's a police state but at least they acknowledge it.
 
Quote from Debaser82:

Singapore is ranked top 5 among most honest governments in the world.

Yes, it's a police state but at least they acknowledge it.
More...

That's a contradiction in terms.

A police state must be by definiton
" clean" , since they make and change the laws when they see fit.

the vast najority of their reserves are in USD , the biggest trade partner is the US , the biggest investor in SG is US co's who are financed by guess who.

The SG gov. took up a 10% stake in citigroup amongst others and the share has gown down 50% or so since then.

Also no corruption ? you ever heard of the NKF scandal or the Nassim hill abuses ?

Come back to me when you have some real knowledge.
 
Quote from Cutten:

Like Asia in 1998? Recovered fine within a year or two.

USA from 1928-32 was under Hoover, an ardent interventionist. Then FDR, an even more ardent interventionist. Look what happened.

Not sure how you can claim the 1930s were a failing of capitalism, when it was socialist law after socialist law that kept getting passed and kept unemployment in the 10-20% range for the only sustained time in US history. Notice how places like Sweden that followed the most laissez-faire policies recovered far quicker and didn't even have a depression, just a recession. The UK was less interventionist and suffered less than the USA (stocks fell 50% not 89%, GDP contracted far less).

The evidence doesn't support your assertion. The most recent Keynesian experiment was 1990-2000 Japan - didn't do well.
More...

100% agree. Economic activity will not stop just because most banks fail. 2-5 years recession? Yes. But that is far, far better than a 10-20 year recession/depression.

There are many companies, such as IB, who are in great position, and if we let the weak ones fail, the stronger ones will be in a better position. The people who really get hurt are those who supported the poorly run companies, which is exactly what you want.

Some things the US government absolutely needs to do, however, is balance the budget, fix the out of control medical system, and slowly switch treasury policy to keep interest rates close to equilibrium instead of 1-4% lower.

Housing prices would fall another 20-40%. Stocks might fall 50%. GDP might fall 15%. However you will see a (very sharp) V-shaped recovery, and overall growth could resume at a sustained pace. Anything else, and we are just repeating Japan (and other) mistakes that have immense short-term appeal, but we will always "win the next battle" yet be "loosing the war".

Having too much debt and too little real assets is not good for individuals, companies, or governments.
 
Correctamundo!

It was bad Gummint policy, poor regulation, greed run amok that got us into this mess.

But Gummint doesn't want to "take the cure"... there would always be an election around the corner where opponents could easily claim, "those in power are not doing right by you... not relieving your situation. So, vote for me and I'll fix it" And of course, desperate people would do exactly that.

Politicians are unwilling to fight the right battle.
 
Quote from Cutten:

Like Asia in 1998? Recovered fine within a year or two.

USA from 1928-32 was under Hoover, an ardent interventionist. Then FDR, an even more ardent interventionist. Look what happened.

Not sure how you can claim the 1930s were a failing of capitalism, when it was socialist law after socialist law that kept getting passed and kept unemployment in the 10-20% range for the only sustained time in US history. Notice how places like Sweden that followed the most laissez-faire policies recovered far quicker and didn't even have a depression, just a recession. The UK was less interventionist and suffered less than the USA (stocks fell 50% not 89%, GDP contracted far less).

The evidence doesn't support your assertion. The most recent Keynesian experiment was 1990-2000 Japan - didn't do well.
More...

One thing you have to consider this time is that the world economy has merged into one. That was never the case.

e.g. AIG fails - all the life insurance policies, valued at trillions, and marketed as "retirement saving", will go to zero, for 30% of the world life insurance policies. These fellows have the right to call their politicians to save their life time savings.

Jim's view is valid if there are alternative economic systems that are insulated from the crisis. That will provide the needed capital and resource to rebuild.
 
LOL, I would not take all that ol Jim is saying for granted, especially not timing-wise. This smart guy is LONG financials to the hilt now, he would be very stupid if he was not. And do you really believe him that he did not sell a single oil contract all the way down from 140 to 95? This guy is way toi smart to let his investment go through a 40% draw down. Sure, he may be bullish on commodities but he may have made on the way down and be already long again. Same with banks. If he is not completely stupid then he will be long in banks and bet on the package to pass congress very soon as Buffet as well. Those guys did not make billions for playing pussy games.


Quote from ByLoSellHi:

Rogers just told Bloomberg that a sharp correction is needed, whereby unhealthy companies and banks go belly up, to clean up the system. He asked "since when is it the goal of free market economies to artificially prevent recessions and bank failures?"

He also stated that it wasn't until the Japanese let their banks fail that they were able to get out of their 15 year recession.

He stated the best that could happen would be a 40% correction to clean out the system.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/a...d=452718&in_page_id=2&position=moretopstories


Tough questions for Hank on bailout plan
James Doran, Evening Standard
25 September 2008, 12:09pm

Hank 'The Hammer' Paulson, US Treasury Secretary and former Wall Street Titan, is to some an unstoppable hero capable of saving his country from certain economic doom.

But to others his agenda strays so far from the basic rules of the free market that he is cast as an un-American leftist agent forcing a socialist agenda on a fearful and powerless populace.

While such a portrayal of the former All-Ivy-League American football star, long time donor to the Republican Party and ex-chief executive of Goldman Sachs sounds ridiculous, just listen to how some of Paulson's former friends are describing his $700bn bailout plan.

Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky, called it 'socialism' and 'un-American' shortly after declaring 'the free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America'. Harsh words indeed.

Others have taken to calling him Comrade Hank while billionaire investor Jim Rogers opined last week that 'America is more communist than China right now'.

But behind all this Cold War era rhetoric lies a certain amount of truth. If Congress gets its way and the US government takes some sort of 'Golden Share' as collateral from all those firms that want to offload toxic mortgage-backed derivatives into Treasury coffers, it will mark the biggest financial services nationalisation programme in history.

And if the US Treasury gets involved in limiting boardroom pay, you might as well turn the lights out on Wall Street and watch as all the bright young MBAs depart for Dubai.

These seemingly extreme measures are not Paulson's own preferred ideas, though. They are provisions he is willing to accept to get his $700bn rescue package passed through Congress in a hurry. They are by-products of his hastiness to press on with his plan coupled with a seeming disregard for the consequences of his actions.

You see, Paulson means well, but each of his good points is overshadowed by a far more onerous bad point. In the same way Lehman Brothers had its 'good-bank bad-bank' elements, the US Treasury seems to be have 'good-Hank bad-Hank' for a boss.

It is very good, for example, that Hank Paulson knows Wall Street and all its top players very well. He knows how they think and, more importantly, he knows their businesses inside out, making it harder for them to lie to him. But it is also bad that Paulson is so close to the big financial industry players, especially to Goldman, as it makes the $700bn he is offering look a bit like a 'Get out of jail free' card for his old chums.

Yet it is also a good thing that Paulson acted so quickly to decide the fate of Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Had he delayed in any of these cases, we might have faced even greater market turmoil in the short term.

But his swiftness to call time on some institutions while extending a helping hand to others has led to charges of inconsistency and unfairness.

If Lehman had known about the current bailout plan, for example, it would not have needed to file for bankruptcy and 10,000 people or so would not be heading for the dole queue.

Another good thing that Paulson advocates admire is his flexibility. He is able to bend the rules and write new ones to accommodate each particular problem facing banks, insurance companies or odd companies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top