no doubt. however, that doesn't mean he's correct.
surf
Jim Rogers on Bernanke: "He is a total fool"
- Thread starter makloda
- Start date
no doubt. however, that doesn't mean he's correct.
surf
Quote from marketsurfer:
yes. im not begruding him, nothing wrong with pushing the agenda. however, i would NEVER buy his place in manhattan!
surf
surf, i dont understand how you can defend a guy like timmay while at the same time criticize rogers for being dishonest by ostensibly promoting his own agenda!
Surf has a penchant to lick up to individuals who are pretentious "trust fund" types, or act like pretentious "trust fund" types. ( It's like Timmay uttering how "if I don't make 50,000 in a trade, it feels like I wasted my time". He forgot that he can't trade in the first place). I don't think any of Surfs "heroes" actually make money trading. Like surf, they make money from "management fees", or news letters or something else tangential to servicing the investors and traders.
how is it dishonest to push your agenda? an argument can be made for roger's view and no doubt he believes it OR he wouldn't have the positions or agenda. however, with that said, he or anyone will LIEN stronger in support of an idea with reputation and money on the line. He is really hyping the positions, it's important to realize the motivations even if they are truly believed.
im not riping on rogers, he is an ok guy--- i simply don't agree with him. i have had the chance to speak with him at length---talk is published somewhere here on elite. he didn't care much for the hard questions......hence the softball nature of the final edit.
surf
maybe he's wrong. maybe it will seem like he's wrong at some point down the road before things go his way. nobody knows 100%. back in 99 he made a great call, heck back then ppl were saying guys like buffet lost their edge in the market. very much like ppl are claiming rogers is an idiot now.
if the dollar keeps dropping the market will adjust eventually. international exposure is the way to go right now and has been for a small while now. there's been holes in the US economy for years, liquidity has just delayed the inevitable.
at this point going away from the US may not protect you from losses, it may merely protect you from grabbing yourself a larger loss.
interesting. he is definitely not an idiot-- traded for soros, earned billions, degrees from yale and oxford etc. . however, i don't agree with him here at ALL.
surf
Funny, I doubt I will ever get an answer.
Empee hit the nail on the head: the future in the US is based on one thing and that is growth.
If we don't grow enough we will suffer and all the bad things the bears worry about will come to pass. What is especially worrying to bears is that they don't see where this growth is going to come from and the bulls seem to take for granted that it will just happen. I think it could go either way and maybe the next election will push things in one direction or another.
The world is more competitive than it has ever been, long gone are the days when most of the world was hampered by communist regimes that essentially made life impossible for their entrepreneurs making living in the land of the free a huge edge in and of itself. Also, gone (or significantly lowered) are many of the barriers to entry in almost every industry and sector you can think of from human resources, to financing, to market access. The point being that US entrepreneurs are going to have to work much harder to create the growth needed in todays global economy than at any other time in history.
At the same time we can more easily take advantage of the opportunities that a globe economy offers but we need to have something that the world needs. Bill Clinton has been making speeches for the last few years that may offer a solution and that is for massive government incentives to drive the emergent alternative energy and nascent green technology evolution. Such support would give US entrepreneurs the competitive advantage they need and would spur tremendous growth ala Y2K.
I am also optimistic that all the new tools that have been created in the last decade(greater computing power, more sophisticated AI, advances in material science, biotech, all serving to increase the speed of innovation) will result in several decades of technology led growth and continued gains in global productivity that will drive global growth (we are already seeing this in the the advances made in genetics and now epigenetics), in other words I am a global bull. The question for Americans is whether we will be able to grow at a rate that, while it will undoubtedly be slower than the EMs, will maintain our standard of living.
Living in Boston with friends from the major academic institutions here who are feverishly bringing new concepts to market and patenting things left and right I am optimistic. What gives me pause is the seeming lack of emphasis on competitive education on a national basis and the waste of trillions by the government on domestic and foreign activities that do nothing to enhance our ability to compete with the rest of the world at a time when we need that edge.
As far as Roger's goes, anyone who looks at reality with their eyes rather than through the imperfect lens of a ass-umptive model can see that he is nobody's fool.
If we don't grow enough we will suffer and all the bad things the bears worry about will come to pass. What is especially worrying to bears is that they don't see where this growth is going to come from and the bulls seem to take for granted that it will just happen. I think it could go either way and maybe the next election will push things in one direction or another.
The world is more competitive than it has ever been, long gone are the days when most of the world was hampered by communist regimes that essentially made life impossible for their entrepreneurs making living in the land of the free a huge edge in and of itself. Also, gone (or significantly lowered) are many of the barriers to entry in almost every industry and sector you can think of from human resources, to financing, to market access. The point being that US entrepreneurs are going to have to work much harder to create the growth needed in todays global economy than at any other time in history.
At the same time we can more easily take advantage of the opportunities that a globe economy offers but we need to have something that the world needs. Bill Clinton has been making speeches for the last few years that may offer a solution and that is for massive government incentives to drive the emergent alternative energy and nascent green technology evolution. Such support would give US entrepreneurs the competitive advantage they need and would spur tremendous growth ala Y2K.
I am also optimistic that all the new tools that have been created in the last decade(greater computing power, more sophisticated AI, advances in material science, biotech, all serving to increase the speed of innovation) will result in several decades of technology led growth and continued gains in global productivity that will drive global growth (we are already seeing this in the the advances made in genetics and now epigenetics), in other words I am a global bull. The question for Americans is whether we will be able to grow at a rate that, while it will undoubtedly be slower than the EMs, will maintain our standard of living.
Living in Boston with friends from the major academic institutions here who are feverishly bringing new concepts to market and patenting things left and right I am optimistic. What gives me pause is the seeming lack of emphasis on competitive education on a national basis and the waste of trillions by the government on domestic and foreign activities that do nothing to enhance our ability to compete with the rest of the world at a time when we need that edge.
As far as Roger's goes, anyone who looks at reality with their eyes rather than through the imperfect lens of a ass-umptive model can see that he is nobody's fool.