A rare useful comment from Youtube:

2011: 100% Chance of Crisis, Worse Than 2008: Jim Rogers
2012: Jim Rogers: It’s Going To Get Really “Bad After The Next Election”
2013: Jim Rogers Warns: “You Better Run for the Hills!”
2014: JIM ROGERS – Sell Everything & Run For Your Lives
2015: Jim Rogers: “We’re Overdue” for a Stock Market Crash
2016: $68 TRILLION “BIBLICAL CRASH” Dead Ahead? Jim Rogers Issues a DIRE WARNING
2017: THE BOTTOM LINE: Legendary investor Jim Rogers expects the worst crash in our lifetime

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So Jim Rogers is a hypocrite, what's your point?
Are you implying/concluding something about Ron Paul's economic policies?

Not so much Paul's policies so much as Paul's supposed knowledge of macroeconomics.

Paul's Austrian economics says that expanding the monetary base the way the Fed has should result in immediate inflation since monetary "stimulus" doesn't do anything but raise the overall price level. According to Paul's prediction, anyone holding a stock of U.S. dollars in cash is a moron, because those dollars are expected to fall in value dramatically any day now. Smart investors would "sell" their dollars and move their wealth to a better investment instrument.

Similarly, Paul's Austrian economics say that running massive government deficits never have a positive effect, and will only lead to inflation and a rise in the government's borrowing costs. In investor terms, that means that you should expect treasury bond prices to fall -- and an investor looking to capitalize on that knowledge can make a profit by shorting bonds.

Jim Rogers is not doing either of those things. Which means one of two things:

1) Jim Rogers is a moron who knows nothing about investments.
2) Jim Rogers thinks Ron Paul's central economic predictions are wrong.

Either way, that means this is not a particularly ringing endorsement of Paul's economic chops. Either he's being praised by a Grade A moron, or his so-called supporter thinks Paul is actually full of shit on the economy, and was stupid enough to make that abundantly clear on TV.

The title I'd probably have sifted this with would be "Paul endorser forced to admit Paul doesn't know jack about economics." Well, at least I would have if titles could be that long...

@NetRunner

So Jim Rogers is a hypocrite, what's your point?

Are you implying/concluding something about Ron Paul's economic policies?

Because if you are, Jim Roger making hypocritical statements is irrelevant to that.

I assumed you were intelligent enough to understand that. Especially after I googled it for you.
~~

Jim Rogers is advocating a shift in our society but he still knows where his bread is buttered.

He's a speculator and Trading 101 Rule 1 is: Follow the trend.

You think he's gonna put his livelyhood on the line, cross his fingers and hope like hell entrenched niggas like you will suddenly about-face?

You oppose war in Afghanistan, right?
But you still pay your taxes, which supports the war there.

Your actions are contradictory therefore.. I can conclude what?

Obama is a shitty president? Of course not.

I'd love to address your invalid point, but you'll have to clarify your conclusion first.

Right, so..

1.) I never said Ron Paul is some panacea for the world's troubles.

2.) I even admitted that Paul is more or less a racist homophobic religious cuke.

3.) I don't think Paul or any single person should have that much power to begin with.

The fact that we're still stuck with a two-party system in which we vote for one president "in charge of everything"..

..as opposed to 50 governors and local communities making their own decisions for their own goddamn selves is mind-numbing.

Point is:
The immediate effects and sincere discussions that would take place in the wake of such a radical candidate becoming president are the best thing that could happen for the American political process at this conjunction in our history.

For fuck's sake, YOUR AVATAR & GALAXY STAR ARE A GUY FAWKES MASK! You should support a grassroots underdog upheaval like the one Paul represents more than anyone on this site.

Ron Paul represents the chance to reclaim our Foreign Policy from Warmongers; our Economics from Speculators; our Health, Safety, Labor, and Ideas from Robber Barons.

But then again, he did stereotype blacks as fleet-footed so.. I guess you make a good counter-point.
>> ^NetRunner:

Hah. No. Of course not.

I'd liked to remain as status quo-y and entrenched in my beliefs as the Conservative Republicans I like to gripe about.

But it's okay cause I wear & cheer lead for the blue team while I do so.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
You got any solutions, bro?
Or just more fallacious arguments?

Are you for real? You seem to think "Fallacious arguments" are arguments that state or imply that Ron Paul is not the solution to every issue under the sun.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

You got any solutions, bro?
Or just more fallacious arguments?

Hey brother. Very cool. You can find the schedule here: http://yeardleymovie.com/screenings/

Times may not be accurate. I'm at the whim of the theater chain when it comes to scheduling. And some of them are not doing the Sunday showing.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
THANKS!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
meeeeeh.
lotta scary music and red herrings BUT it also is chock full of correct information and points to very real possibilities.
money junkies and power junkies all snorting coke off of a strippers fake titties.
jim rogers and peter schiff called this all in 04.
a lot of clips of them in this film..worth a watch and then decide for yourself.
*promote

anytime man.
hey..if you get a chance think you could get me your distribution schedule for your movie?
i was not kidding when i said i would support ya.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
THANKS!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
meeeeeh.
lotta scary music and red herrings BUT it also is chock full of correct information and points to very real possibilities.
money junkies and power junkies all snorting coke off of a strippers fake titties.
jim rogers and peter schiff called this all in 04.
a lot of clips of them in this film..worth a watch and then decide for yourself.
*promote

anytime man.
hey..if you get a chance think you could get me your distribution schedule for your movie?
i was not kidding when i said i would support ya.

THANKS!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
meeeeeh.
lotta scary music and red herrings BUT it also is chock full of correct information and points to very real possibilities.
money junkies and power junkies all snorting coke off of a strippers fake titties.
jim rogers and peter schiff called this all in 04.
a lot of clips of them in this film..worth a watch and then decide for yourself.
*promote

meeeeeh.
lotta scary music and red herrings BUT it also is chock full of correct information and points to very real possibilities.
money junkies and power junkies all snorting coke off of a strippers fake titties.
jim rogers and peter schiff called this all in 04.
a lot of clips of them in this film..worth a watch and then decide for yourself.
*promote

Jim Rogers generally knows of which he speaks.

>> ^Farhad2000:
But thats the thing, flavioriberio, I don't believe anyone is going to be going bankrupt. They are gonna be bailed out.

Indeed.

>> ^Farhad2000:

(2) start taxing speculative market operations, especially those involving overseas transactions;

I agree with this one, as right now speculative market transactions are done at seemingly no risk.

Well, it's always like this at the end of a bull market. And the bull market/bear market cycle is a creation of the central banks. It's a cycle of low interest rates, overvaluation and malinvestment followed by the inevitable price corrections and high interest rates.

There's already a way of making institutions accountable: let them go bankrupt. The market is self regulating, and bailing speculators out is stealing from tax payers.

Taxing speculative operations would only further aggravate the crisis, because in times of uncertainty it's the speculators who move the economy.

>> ^Enzoblue:
Or we can just take 4% the richest 2% of americans net worth and solve this issue instantly and end world hunger at the same time.

It would certainly fit the third world nation rationale behind the current US economic policy.

The White House should go with the whole banana republic package. Here are some ideas: (1) institute a price freeze on basic food products, also prohibiting their export; (2) start taxing speculative market operations, especially those involving overseas transactions; (3) tax all monetary transactions, irrespective of nature; (4) increase the size of government, increase regulation; (5) start blaming foreign nations; (6) nationalize health and infrastructure services; (7) start a program awarding food/fuel vouchers and money allowances to low income families, where "low income" encompasses a large category; (8) increase government spending with large projects, in order to jump-start the economy; (9) have the president make frequent, 4 hour long speeches.

So much of economics is perception - if they can just convince the lenders everything will be ok for a while, the borrowers will come back in with incredible demand.

You've just outlined why Jim Rogers is right. Banks have been technically insolvent for at least 2 months, and the NY Fed open market reports have shown that there's at least one very large depository institution in deep trouble. The credit crisis stems from people not knowing who is in trouble, and to what extent. The Fed only makes this worse by extending endless credit to institutions which would've otherwise been forced to liquidate their assets, returning confidence to the system.

The credit market won't start moving just because the Fed keeps throwing money at it, because in the grand scheme of things it's the market that sets interest rates, especially to the low income owners that you're trying to protect. They've gambled with this gimmick for the last 9 months and have only managed to create more uncertainty and a weaker dollar.

Instead of outlining everything I believe in, I'll refer you to Karl Denninger's open letter: http://www.denninger.net/letters/open-letter.pdf