jim rogers on cnbc today....

Quote from Cutten:

If it's a mystery, then why not educate yourself? Read some works by respected economists. Go back through newspaper archives and economic journals and study every recession and depression from the last 100 years. Why did Sweden recover from the Great Depression far quicker than the US? Why did the Asia meltdown of 1997-98 not turn into a depression? Why did Brazil recover from its meltdown in 2001-02 far better than Argentina? Why did America recover so quickly from the 1907 banking crisis, and not the 1929 crash? Why did the bursting of the 2000 bubble result in a mild 2 quarter recession rather than another depression? Do some homework and you will get your answers. There is a consistent pattern of quicker recoveries occuring when a recession is left to occur without heavy government intervention, versus depressions resulting when the government tries as hard as possible to stave off recession. The US Hoover and FDR administrations, and the Japan government in the 1990s, both had amongst the most heavily interventionist policies in the face of recession - they both had huge and lasting depressions. Some of the quickest recoveries from recession came when a reasonably laissez-faire approach was followed, such as Sweden in the 1930s, Germany post WWII, Brazil 2003 onwards (especially compared to Argentina's much more interventionist response) etc. It is a pretty strong and convincing body of evidence. Theory too provides compelling reasons to think that a relatively hands-off approach, allowing a recession to deflate overpriced assets and speculative excess, results in a quicker adjustment and subsequent recovery. When centuries of theory and practise both say the same thing, that is pretty compelling evidence.

Recessions cause markets to clear. Cleared markets allow new investment at equilibrium prices, which creates economic growth and value-added activity based on reasonably efficient, rational risk premia. Recovery then occurs. It happens the same every time markets are left broadly to their own devices. Yet each time, ignorant people think an economy can't possibly recover by itself.

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant about economics. There is a lot wrong with being ignorant about economics, and then offering strong opinions on the subject, such as that notion that economies cannot recover from recession without government internvention. People should learn to hold their tongue when the discussion moves to subjects about which they know little. I would not butt in on a discussion about neurosurgery to lecture people on the right way to conduct an operation. Yet lots of people with little or no training, education, or qualifications in economics seem to think they have the right to hold forth on the subject. This is a dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance. If you don't have the desire or time to educate yourself on economic matters, leave the discussion to those who do.
More...

Nice Cutten, very nice.
 
Jim Rogers simply shares the views of what tens of thousands already know and knew when Jim Rogers knew it. He is just a celebrity who is a spokesman for the unknowns. The fact someone doesn't know what Jim Rogers knows only tells me, they didn't know bird-shit from honey in the first place.
 
Quote from Cutten:

Well, he has said repeatedly that he has position X, Y, Z. Are you saying he is lying in the national press and television?

Come on, don't play naive here - if you think the guy has been lying nationwide across the media for the last 25 years, then provide some evidence to back it up. That's just basic common sense. You don't accuse a man of outright lies like that without presenting some facts to support your case.

It's a simple matter of fair play and common decency. I am not bothered if you disagree with me, but I am bothered when you accuse someone of basically being a fraudulent liar like that without a shred of apparent evidence.
More...

Cutten:

Exactly. Excellent post. I'm in total agreement. Very well said. I see Landis bashing Rogers for no apparent reason in a variety of posts, without ever having posted a single fact.

You know, I'm completely convinced from having listened to this guy, read what he had to say, for let's say 30+ years, that he definitely trades his own account. He goes into various detail about that in some of his writings.

He was one of the originals guys to do Global investing, traveling to countries all over the world, and where he saw one he liked, buying shares in all the stocks listed on the exchange, and then holding them.

Taught investments for a while at Columbia. On the Barron's year end panel for years. This guy is a widely known respected investor. The investment I like is the house in New York that he bought out of foreclosure for $100K, that he recently sold for $15 million+.

I also remember his short in Intel back in the 90s. He was way wrong on that one. He's had others. but he has had a lot more right than wrong over the years. And when he is right, he's very right.

Marketing. This guy is a lousy marketer. Give me a break.

OldTrader
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top