Jim Rogers on the UK Ratings Downgrade and Currency Debasment
18 thoughts on “Jim Rogers on the UK Ratings Downgrade and Currency Debasment”
d. miller
Remember that time Jim Rogers was interviewed by a frothing communist? Now you do.
bproman
Let me ponder what the United Kingdom produces so that I might trade ……………
james jones
@bproman. The UK exports over half a trillion pounds of goods. Don’t believe in all the cliches. They export a lot of cars, even though Land Rover, Jaguar, Mini, Bentley are in foreign hands. Also, people ignore all the big UK mining companies — BHP Billiton, Anglo-American, Xstrata — even Rio Tinto is half British. Plus you’ve got BP and Shell, the latter which is half British. Big Pharma UK companies– GlaxoSmithKiline, and AstraZeneca. Do some research. It woke me up.
Flopot
@D. Miller
What do you mean by communist? Seems to mean anything these days. Fair taxation? COMMIE!!!! Regulation to prevent crime? COMMIE!!! Government should help the people and not the corporations? COMMIE BASTARD!!!!
I the f**king E, your “frothing communist” phrase says more about you than anyone else.
snoop diddy
@james jones.
In some instances the UK doesnt particularly produce much that those companies trade though.
there is also British Gas Group of companies and Branson has Virgin Money and airlines around the world too.My opinion is that there would be some connection between London banking and access to credit for those companies too to create their overseas empire to exploit resources. But, generally, when people mention ‘produce’, I think of manufacturing.
d. miller
Let my piss flo into your pot, flopot. Your rejection of the labeling of the interviewer spewing communist propaganda on a communist network funded by the theft (well, willinginly given by morons like you) of taxes from the productive citizens to fund worthless Keynesian nonsense tells all of Max’s regulars you are a worthless Krugmanite.
Please go back to Daily Kos or Crooks & Liars (not actually about Democrats as the name inplies) and leave the grown ups alone as we try to fix the mistakes of 100+ years of the government intervening in monetery policy of the nation(s) .
You clearly agree with the idiot interviewer 9making yourself an idiot as well) and reject the views of Rogers (posted because the purveyors of this site agree with him, not the psychotic Marxist interviewer). May you rot in hell for what you have done with my money you TARP-supporting COMMIE NAZI MARXIST MAOIST FASCIST who thinks we owe you a fucking god damn dime.
DidI leave any ad hominems out as I destroyed your viewpoint?
Flopot
@D.Miller
Please stuff your communist labelling up your own proverbial. I care not for Keynsian economics (whatever the f**k that means these days), the BBC nor the neoliberal shyster (yes Rogers) they interview. But I will call out right wing libertarians like yourself, anytime, anywhere.
Flopot
PS That is a nice f**king avatar you have. Is that the one with the corporate symbols instead of the stars? Well congratulations on being a dumb f**k because that flag is the epitome of right wing libertarianism. The corporations captured the democracy to put themselves above the law and all in the name of a free market, i.e. the lawless market.
I am not intimidated by your sophistry, nor will I fall for it. Go kiss the arse of the Koch brothers that fund your movements.
Curious
Dear Flopot, what is a right wing libertarian? And how does a right wing libertarian differ from a left wing libertarian? What similarities do they share that makes both philiophies libertarian?
Thank you very much for taking the time to share your knowledge and educate those of us who are curious.
Flopot
@Curious
Thank you for that snide and sarcastic questions. Go do the research yourself on anarcho-capitalism and archo-syndicalsim. Your unctuous writing style is curiously similar to other posters. Like I said, I’ll call you out everytime.
Flopot
*those snide and sarcastic questions
Flopot
My nerd rage is affecting my spelling.
Curious
Dear Floptop, I’m not being sarcastic, I genuinely would like to know what you think. I apologize if I seemed insincere.
I’ve looked into libertarianism a little, but honestly, it’s quite confusing to me. When I try to delve deeper and understand the general philosophy on more than just a very superficial level, I tend to encounter encounter what seems to me an endless number of factions within libertarianism that only seems to serve to give libertarians a multitude of reason to find fault with each other. Is there some single or few set of easily definable beliefs that separate the right and the left in your mind, personally?
Thanks again for your time and your help. And don’t worry about spelling errors, I make plenty myself.
Flopot
@Curious
I have to assume you are being sarcastic. Defensive mechanism.
Well, rightwing libertarians enrage me (Stacy would probably call it narcisscism – now I must go and study that ffs). The meaning of what I understand to be rightwing libertarianism is implicit in my rants, i.e. the free market runs everything. There is no government, no law. I think this is the extreme version.
I have learned the fundamentals about rightwing libertarianism from listening to interviews with the likes of Stefan Molyneaux and Peter Schiff. And of course followed up links posted by libertarian supporters on this site. Posters like “Al Kyder” and Stacy herself introduced me to the concept of anarcho-cindywotsits or left wing libertarianism. But I haven’t studied that idea much at all.
What it shares with the leftwing variety is the absence of the state. But I don’t fully understand anarcho-syndiclism, nevermind spelling that phrase or even saying it. Sure I’ve even spelled it wrong again. Anyway, it seems like wishful thinking to me but I say that as a non-academic in this matter.
Regarding rightwing libertarian factions, to me they all share the same beliefs as the neoliberals and the laisezz-faire crowd. They also mangle language (e.g. lawless equals freedom, money equals free speech etc) and they use sophistry to convince you that all evils spring from the state. So let us minimize the state or remove it altogether.
Another example of rightwing libertarian dissembling of the facts is the propaganda they pump out trying to blame the banking crisis on government regulation. Which flies in the face of the facts that de-regulation of the financial sector and regulatory capture was responsible. But a rightwing libertarian, just like a neoliberal, will use a crisis to pursue the single minded idea of destroying the democracies (which is the logical outcome if you want to remove the state).
So given such a destructive ideology (just look at what neoliberalism has achieved), rightwing libertarianism is an idea to be confronted, not indulged. In my opinion, of course.
Flopot
Of course, I forgot to mention the importance of coercion in libertarianism or rather their opposition to coercion. Which is a very attractive trait. That and their opposition to the Fed and imperialist wars. Then they go all batshit crazy once they start trying to sell the lawless market, as I call it.
Curious
Dear Flopot, thank you very much for sharing your opinion!
Yes, I too very much like the position shared among libertarians concerning the opposition to coercion. To have as much interaction between individuals be voluntary and as mutually beneficial as possible seems a much nicer way of getting things done. I guess it would only take those having a disproportionate amount of power deciding not to use it unfairly for their personal benefit, right? A little fanciful a notion, maybe.
I like to think that most of us don’t want the better lives we wish for ourselves to come at the expense of others. In the most general sense, I totally agree with the idea of freedom and equality for everyone. If I ever choose to label myself a libertarian, I think I’ll only ever define myself by wanting simply that.
Thanks for pointing me toward Stefan Molyneaux and Peter Schiff. I’ll look into what they have to say as well as those who disagree with them and hopefully come out the other side a little more knowledgeable myself.
Thanks again and have a nice day.
Flopot
@Curious
I am curious about your logic…
“I guess it would only take those having a disproportionate amount of power deciding not to use it unfairly for their personal benefit, right? ”
My guess is that the lawless market would lead exactly to such a situation.
Anyway, I think you are being a sarcastic fucker who thinks he is being clever by playing mindgames with rightwing libertarian sophistry. Basically you would have to be quite dumb not to have heard of Peter and Stefan, especially if you frequent this site and have investigated neoliberalism…sorry I mean rightwing libertarianism. Because they are so different
Flopot
“My guess is that the lawless market would lead exactly to such a situation”.
I need to clarify this statement – the lawless market would lead to a situation in which the powerful WOULD use it unfairly for their own benefit. In fact, it is already happening in the democracies: the corporations captured the governent to set themselves above the law and now they can interact in a lawless market whilst screwing over everybody else.
Remember that time Jim Rogers was interviewed by a frothing communist? Now you do.
Let me ponder what the United Kingdom produces so that I might trade ……………
@bproman. The UK exports over half a trillion pounds of goods. Don’t believe in all the cliches. They export a lot of cars, even though Land Rover, Jaguar, Mini, Bentley are in foreign hands. Also, people ignore all the big UK mining companies — BHP Billiton, Anglo-American, Xstrata — even Rio Tinto is half British. Plus you’ve got BP and Shell, the latter which is half British. Big Pharma UK companies– GlaxoSmithKiline, and AstraZeneca. Do some research. It woke me up.
@D. Miller
What do you mean by communist? Seems to mean anything these days. Fair taxation? COMMIE!!!! Regulation to prevent crime? COMMIE!!! Government should help the people and not the corporations? COMMIE BASTARD!!!!
I the f**king E, your “frothing communist” phrase says more about you than anyone else.
@james jones.
In some instances the UK doesnt particularly produce much that those companies trade though.
there is also British Gas Group of companies and Branson has Virgin Money and airlines around the world too.My opinion is that there would be some connection between London banking and access to credit for those companies too to create their overseas empire to exploit resources. But, generally, when people mention ‘produce’, I think of manufacturing.
Let my piss flo into your pot, flopot. Your rejection of the labeling of the interviewer spewing communist propaganda on a communist network funded by the theft (well, willinginly given by morons like you) of taxes from the productive citizens to fund worthless Keynesian nonsense tells all of Max’s regulars you are a worthless Krugmanite.
Please go back to Daily Kos or Crooks & Liars (not actually about Democrats as the name inplies) and leave the grown ups alone as we try to fix the mistakes of 100+ years of the government intervening in monetery policy of the nation(s) .
You clearly agree with the idiot interviewer 9making yourself an idiot as well) and reject the views of Rogers (posted because the purveyors of this site agree with him, not the psychotic Marxist interviewer). May you rot in hell for what you have done with my money you TARP-supporting COMMIE NAZI MARXIST MAOIST FASCIST who thinks we owe you a fucking god damn dime.
DidI leave any ad hominems out as I destroyed your viewpoint?
@D.Miller
Please stuff your communist labelling up your own proverbial. I care not for Keynsian economics (whatever the f**k that means these days), the BBC nor the neoliberal shyster (yes Rogers) they interview. But I will call out right wing libertarians like yourself, anytime, anywhere.
PS That is a nice f**king avatar you have. Is that the one with the corporate symbols instead of the stars? Well congratulations on being a dumb f**k because that flag is the epitome of right wing libertarianism. The corporations captured the democracy to put themselves above the law and all in the name of a free market, i.e. the lawless market.
I am not intimidated by your sophistry, nor will I fall for it. Go kiss the arse of the Koch brothers that fund your movements.
Dear Flopot, what is a right wing libertarian? And how does a right wing libertarian differ from a left wing libertarian? What similarities do they share that makes both philiophies libertarian?
Thank you very much for taking the time to share your knowledge and educate those of us who are curious.
@Curious
Thank you for that snide and sarcastic questions. Go do the research yourself on anarcho-capitalism and archo-syndicalsim. Your unctuous writing style is curiously similar to other posters. Like I said, I’ll call you out everytime.
*those snide and sarcastic questions
My nerd rage is affecting my spelling.
Dear Floptop, I’m not being sarcastic, I genuinely would like to know what you think. I apologize if I seemed insincere.
I’ve looked into libertarianism a little, but honestly, it’s quite confusing to me. When I try to delve deeper and understand the general philosophy on more than just a very superficial level, I tend to encounter encounter what seems to me an endless number of factions within libertarianism that only seems to serve to give libertarians a multitude of reason to find fault with each other. Is there some single or few set of easily definable beliefs that separate the right and the left in your mind, personally?
Thanks again for your time and your help. And don’t worry about spelling errors, I make plenty myself.
@Curious
I have to assume you are being sarcastic. Defensive mechanism.
Well, rightwing libertarians enrage me (Stacy would probably call it narcisscism – now I must go and study that ffs). The meaning of what I understand to be rightwing libertarianism is implicit in my rants, i.e. the free market runs everything. There is no government, no law. I think this is the extreme version.
I have learned the fundamentals about rightwing libertarianism from listening to interviews with the likes of Stefan Molyneaux and Peter Schiff. And of course followed up links posted by libertarian supporters on this site. Posters like “Al Kyder” and Stacy herself introduced me to the concept of anarcho-cindywotsits or left wing libertarianism. But I haven’t studied that idea much at all.
What it shares with the leftwing variety is the absence of the state. But I don’t fully understand anarcho-syndiclism, nevermind spelling that phrase or even saying it. Sure I’ve even spelled it wrong again. Anyway, it seems like wishful thinking to me but I say that as a non-academic in this matter.
Regarding rightwing libertarian factions, to me they all share the same beliefs as the neoliberals and the laisezz-faire crowd. They also mangle language (e.g. lawless equals freedom, money equals free speech etc) and they use sophistry to convince you that all evils spring from the state. So let us minimize the state or remove it altogether.
Another example of rightwing libertarian dissembling of the facts is the propaganda they pump out trying to blame the banking crisis on government regulation. Which flies in the face of the facts that de-regulation of the financial sector and regulatory capture was responsible. But a rightwing libertarian, just like a neoliberal, will use a crisis to pursue the single minded idea of destroying the democracies (which is the logical outcome if you want to remove the state).
So given such a destructive ideology (just look at what neoliberalism has achieved), rightwing libertarianism is an idea to be confronted, not indulged. In my opinion, of course.
Of course, I forgot to mention the importance of coercion in libertarianism or rather their opposition to coercion. Which is a very attractive trait. That and their opposition to the Fed and imperialist wars. Then they go all batshit crazy once they start trying to sell the lawless market, as I call it.
Dear Flopot, thank you very much for sharing your opinion!
Yes, I too very much like the position shared among libertarians concerning the opposition to coercion. To have as much interaction between individuals be voluntary and as mutually beneficial as possible seems a much nicer way of getting things done. I guess it would only take those having a disproportionate amount of power deciding not to use it unfairly for their personal benefit, right? A little fanciful a notion, maybe.
I like to think that most of us don’t want the better lives we wish for ourselves to come at the expense of others. In the most general sense, I totally agree with the idea of freedom and equality for everyone. If I ever choose to label myself a libertarian, I think I’ll only ever define myself by wanting simply that.
Thanks for pointing me toward Stefan Molyneaux and Peter Schiff. I’ll look into what they have to say as well as those who disagree with them and hopefully come out the other side a little more knowledgeable myself.
Thanks again and have a nice day.
@Curious
I am curious about your logic…
“I guess it would only take those having a disproportionate amount of power deciding not to use it unfairly for their personal benefit, right? ”
My guess is that the lawless market would lead exactly to such a situation.
Anyway, I think you are being a sarcastic fucker who thinks he is being clever by playing mindgames with rightwing libertarian sophistry. Basically you would have to be quite dumb not to have heard of Peter and Stefan, especially if you frequent this site and have investigated neoliberalism…sorry I mean rightwing libertarianism. Because they are so different
“My guess is that the lawless market would lead exactly to such a situation”.
I need to clarify this statement – the lawless market would lead to a situation in which the powerful WOULD use it unfairly for their own benefit. In fact, it is already happening in the democracies: the corporations captured the governent to set themselves above the law and now they can interact in a lawless market whilst screwing over everybody else.