Jimmy Rogers says Central Bankers are "clueless"

[classhandicapper]

That's an understatement.

Just remember who was in power when this occurred and whose economic philosophy was being applied because when "it' hits the fan, it is likely someone else will be in power.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/15/investing/jim-rogers-central-banks-stock-markets/

[sammy the sage]

Central bankers are NOT clueless...those who ALLLOW their very existence ARE...

[whodoyoulike]

That's an understatement.

Just remember who was in power when this occurred and whose economic philosophy was being applied because when "it' hits the fan, it is likely someone else will be in power.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/15/investing/jim-rogers-central-banks-stock-markets/

Just so I understand your comment, who is or was in power and whose philosophy?

I've always have been a big fan of Jim Rogers mostly because he always views things differently than most analysts.

[Valuist]

http://kingworldnews.com/legend-warns-were-entering-the-most-dangerous-phase-of-the-worst-crisis-in-world-history/

[barahona44]

Just so I understand your comment, who is or was in power and whose philosophy?

I've always have been a big fan of Jim Rogers mostly because he always views things differently than most analysts.
Jim Rogers is a genius and he'll be the first one to tell you that.

Rogers problem is that he lacks humility, he has been on a 'commodities will have their day' forecast since it seemed like the Truman administration and just as the broken clock tells the right time twice a day, on occasion , he got it right.Yes, he and his partner George Soros had a great decade in the 1970's and hats should be tipped in his direction , but since then it's just all gloom & doom and of course commodities. Negativity does not equal profundity.

Maybe he's right about central bankers, maybe not.

[classhandicapper]

Just so I understand your comment, who is or was in power and whose philosophy?


The people in power now believe that running huge deficits, lowering real interest rates to negative, and printing trillions of dollars are the correct way to deal with economic excesses (that in some cases were caused by that very same philosophy). They are Keynesians and monetarists. Right now it is the Obama administration in the US and like minded thinkers around the world that are in charge of fiscal policy and appointments at central banks.

So as we continue digging ourselves deeper and deeper into this hole, we should keep in mind who did the digging. The implications may not be revealed while the diggers are in power.

[burnsy]

The world economy and the US economy are not 100%, free market, capitalist economies. Its a mixed bag of different philosophies that have to be balanced over time. When there is a downturn or failure the banks will reduce interest rates to zero or negative interest. This is done to restart the economy when its in bad shape. These people, Rogers and others are absolutely correct when they say this can not be done for ever or tried over and over again. Money is not some infinite thing that you can print over and over again. Germany tried that and eventually a wheel barrel full of money would get you a loaf of bread.

This is what many people don't understand. Like politics, they have two schools of thought and these people get sucked into one side or the other. In reality, its a fragile balancing act. Too much from either side causes the same consequences. We saw what happened when the banks were allowed to gamble everything. The same thing happened in the 1920's when people were told that you couldn't lose on the Stock Market. That combined with bad weather caused a mighty Depression. We did some of the same moves back then and it works temporarily. However, these markets can't sustain this rally on there own. That's what he is saying when he points out QE 4, 5 or change the name to cupcake because soon people will catch on. Everything that goes up must come down. The banks could raise interest and slow the money growth down and there would be a correction. If they continue in this direction they are going in (no interest or some low, absurd rate), the correction could be another fall over the cliff. Just "propping" the markets is not a full read of the economy. Wages have more to do with the economy than equity in this day and age. He kind of hits the nail on the head and he's not the only one saying this. When the time comes that half of the people, can't afford half of the crap they are selling .....we will be in deep doo doo. Why do people think Wal Marts are closing stores? Once the equity can't be justified because its not earning, it is right now, and part of this is "artificial", due to monetary policy, but in the future there could be one colossal melt down. Because this is not sustainable over the long haul.

[Shemp Howard]

DUDE...what's with the plagiarism?

Just post the damn LINK:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-17/ban-cash-coming-soon

[RunForTheRoses]

Good educational thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3L2qf3q-ok

[LottaKash]

But since central banks have no other choice than to continue imposing negative interest rates, the only logical option is to ban cash and force consumers to hold their money within the banking system.

Until we are "bled dry"....Then Total Control kicks in.. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Tom]

I am all for small government and limited regulations, but BANKS must be severely regulated.

A banker should have to have approval to fart.
The color of their toilet paper should be legislated.

[whodoyoulike]

The people in power now believe that running huge deficits, lowering real interest rates to negative, and printing trillions of dollars are the correct way to deal with economic excesses (that in some cases were caused by that very same philosophy). They are Keynesians and monetarists. Right now it is the Obama administration in the US and like minded thinkers around the world that are in charge of fiscal policy and appointments at central banks.

So as we continue digging ourselves deeper and deeper into this hole, we should keep in mind who did the digging. The implications may not be revealed while the diggers are in power.

I had the feeling you were attempting to assign the blame to Obama, Bernanke and/or Paulson instead of the past Congresses (probably the ones sitting 10 years before 2007), major bankers and other major financial companies i.e., mortgage and insurance. The three I've noted above shouldn't be blamed for attempting to correct someone else's mess.

But, a lot of people will be blaming them. Regarding Obama, the QE program was already planned and started and implemented before his inauguration for him to stop a $billion gov't plan before seeing it's effective results would have caused chaos. I think I understand Bernanke and Paulson's thinking which was to prevent a long term major depression and it seems to have succeeded. Now, it's a matter of how to extricate the country out of this hole it's in.

Again, the blame should always be on "the past Congresses (probably the ones sitting 10 years before 2007), major bankers and other major financial companies i.e., mortgage and insurance." The same goes for other countries around the world because it now appears they were all doing similar practices.

Think about it, have any of these people suffered or are still suffering?

I have the feeling you like shooting pool. Obama's position was like being behind the 8 ball. You just do the best you can always with the possibility of scratching.

[sammy the sage]

I had the feeling you were attempting to assign the blame to Obama, Bernanke and/or Paulson instead of the past Congresses (probably the ones sitting 10 years before 2007), major bankers and other major financial companies i.e., mortgage and insurance. The three I've noted above shouldn't be blamed for attempting to correct someone else's mess.

But, a lot of people will be blaming them. Regarding Obama, the QE program was already planned and started and implemented before his inauguration for him to stop a $billion gov't plan before seeing it's effective results would have caused chaos. I think I understand Bernanke and Paulson's thinking which was to prevent a long term major depression and it seems to have succeeded. Now, it's a matter of how to extricate the country out of this hole it's in.

Again, the blame should always be on "the past Congresses (probably the ones sitting 10 years before 2007), major bankers and other major financial companies i.e., mortgage and insurance." The same goes for other countries around the world because it now appears they were all doing similar practices.

Think about it, have any of these people suffered or are still suffering?

I have the feeling you like shooting pool. Obama's position was like being behind the 8 ball. You just do the best you can always with the possibility of scratching.

DAMN it people...learn yore history...1998...re-peal Glass/stegel....a putrid PUG congress passed it to a equally RAT prez....hand in hand They WERE...

by the way...for ALL the smoke an mirrors...dog & pony show...they still DAMN well ARE....

[classhandicapper]

Shemp,

The Keynesians and central bankers are growing more desperate by the day. They will continue to use everything in their power to keep the system afloat.

They will use QE4, QE5, and QE infinity, 2 trillion dollar deficits etc...

If people start running to gold instead of cash, they will manipulate the gold market and make up some lame excuse for why it's necessary.

If that doesn't work, they will say owners of gold are not patriotic and come up with some reason for confiscating it and making it illegal.

There is no end to their insanity and incompetence.

There is a reason my politics are so extreme at times. The handwriting is on the wall. We have very little time to try to dig ourselves out of this mess we are in now, let alone the even worse long term obligations of the world. But that's the only way we can avoid a global financial meltdown of the type that the world has never seen. It may already be too late. We can't be pussy footing around with incompetents like Obama, Bernanke, Yellen, Draghi, Kuroda, Krugman, etc.. and all the Keynesians taking us off a cliff. This is not boy cry wolf stuff. The system is falling apart. There is reason interest rates are negative and we are printing trillions but the world economy is still not responding. We are on life support and these Keynesian ass wipes took us here.

[classhandicapper]

I had the feeling you were attempting to assign the blame to Obama, Bernanke and/or Paulson instead of the past Congresses (probably the ones sitting 10 years before 2007), major bankers and other major financial companies i.e., mortgage and insurance. The three I've noted above shouldn't be blamed for attempting to correct someone else's mess.



I'm assigning blame to everyone that thinks running deficits and easy money are the solution to excesses that can pop up within the free market system. They are not. They are like giving heroin to an addict going through withdrawal. They relive symptoms but make the patient sicker.

My point about Obama is that typically whoever is in power gets the blame when the excesses blow up. We have massive excesses now that the Obama administration may pass on to Hillary/Sanders or whoever the republican nominee is. So when it blows up, people should understand that.

Bush inherited a telecom and dot com bubble from Clinton and created a housing bubble that made it worse. Obama inherited a housing bubble from Bush and has taken us to the edge of doom.

[whodoyoulike]

I'm assigning blame to everyone that thinks running deficits and easy money are the solution to excesses that can pop up within the free market system. They are not. They are like giving heroin to an addict going through withdrawal. They relive symptoms but make the patient sicker.

My point about Obama is ...

Again, my point is everyone should actually blame who was responsible not those who ended up trying to clean up the messes. I think I understand why they took the financial path which was taken. A problem when instituting something which had never been tried is the resulting effects of the action. I'm certain they had different scenarios and I wonder if any of them actually played out. I'm a big believer of cause and effect whether it's finance or horse racing. It may be applicable to everything but I'm aware sometimes there are random events as in horse racing which will change an outcome.

[classhandicapper]

Again, my point is everyone should actually blame who was responsible not those who ended up trying to clean up the messes. I think I understand why they took the financial path which was taken. A problem when instituting something which had never been tried is the resulting effects of the action. I'm certain they had different scenarios and I wonder if any of them actually played out. I'm a big believer of cause and effect whether it's finance or horse racing. It may be applicable to everything but I'm aware sometimes there are random events as in horse racing which will change an outcome.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

At their core, the messes they are trying to clean up have resulted from the monetary and fiscal policies they undertook to begin with.

If you artificially (meaning in a non free market way using central banks) lower interest rates and make credit very easy, you will change the behavior of businesses and people and cause them to miscalculate. Interest rates and the availability of credit are a primary input to economic decision making.

If a bunch of people and businesses in the free market start miscalculating and borrowing all that cheap capital bidding up the prices of real estate and stocks, lending money to junk borrowers, etc.. and then 4-5 years later it all blows up, it's YOUR fault. You are the one that encouraged it and you are the drug dealer that supplied the crack and heroin. You are the one that gave the corrupt, greedy, and foolish out there the opportunity to do wildly irresponsible things.

So if you are then faced with the difficult choice of bailing out the system with even more of the same or allowing the excesses to correct, you put yourself in that position.

And each time you choose to bail it out it, you dig yourself deeper because the downside of doing nothing becomes more dangerous the next time.

When you've done it several times, you wind up where we are now.

The world is suffocating under extreme debt and malinvestment. The promises government has made (that could never be kept to begin with) are coming due while we are already suffocating. There is no longer an easy way out.

The core fault lies with the drug dealers that encouraged it and aggressively acted to keep the addict symptom free until he was on his deathbed instead of trying make him healthy when they actually had a chance to do it in a manageable way.

[whodoyoulike]

You are putting the cart before the horse.

At their core, the messes they are trying to clean up have resulted from the monetary and fiscal policies they undertook to begin with. ...

There is no longer an easy way out. ...

I don't feel I've been putting the cart before the horse. You're just looking at it from a different perspective from me. Sounds like you want to go back to the 1970's or 1980's. I don't think it's really necessary to go back that far, enough (i.e., the financial path) probably started in the 1990's and early 2000's.

And, I do agree with you that there is no longer an easy way out since those attempting to correct the messes here and around the world are and have been operating in uncharted waters. Again, I doubt the resulting effects occurring in their scenarios hasn't been playing out as expected for some time.

[plainolebill]

You could go back as far as Nixon closing the gold window. Can't run these kinds of deficits if a dollar is redeemable for gold from the treasury.

My only problems with President Obama is him using up his first few years in office with that bastardized medical care program when he should have been slapping the banks around and figuring out a way to get people working again. Missed opportunity. He didn't create the mess we're in but he hasn't done a very good job of cleaning it up either.

[whodoyoulike]

... He didn't create the mess we're in but he hasn't done a very good job of cleaning it up either.

The "job scope" responsibility of cleaning up the mess was probably on individuals like Paulson, Bernanke, Summers (maybe), Geithner etc. I understand why Paulson left out of the follow up but I'm certain he was part of the initial plan (QE) and other programs to prevent a depression here and around the world. I don't recall exactly why both Summers and Geithner left but I have a feeling they looked at the numbers and said to themselves that they spent their lives building a reputation and weren't going to ruin it by a bunch of B.S. bankers.

Obama doesn't appear to have given up and we'll see if he acknowledges that he could have done it differently. Again, I don't blame anybody that has tried to clean up this mess. I don't agree with a lot of what they've done but I'll give the experts a chance meanwhile I'll continue to look at my own situation.

Which is one reason I'm trying to improve my handicapping and money management.

[plainolebill]

My opinion is that the president hired the same tired old faces we've been seeing around the treasury, NY Fed and Wall Street forever.

The old saw: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. That's on him.