Macroeconomic guru Jim Rogers has a message for investors: The United Kingdom is finished.Bloomberg quotes the bow tie-clad forecaster as saying that he "would urge you to sell any sterling you might have. It's finished. I hate to say it, but I would not put any money in the U.K."
But England isn't the only country Rogers is trashing. Reuters reports that Rogers is accusing the United States of a systematic effort to devalue the dollar by "turning on the printing presses." It's hard to argue with that and he went on to say that "The idea that you can fix a period of excess borrowing and excess consumption by more borrowing and more consumption to me is just ludicrous."
He reiterated his bullishness on China's long-term future even though that market has been hammered of late.
Regardless of whether you buy into his investment theses, it's hard to argue with his logic that borrowing and consumption will not lead out of a nightmare created by borrowing and consumption.
Will JPMorgan chief Jamie Dimon be our next Treasury Secretary?
Gold surges to another new high of $1167 per ounce
Cramer on BloggingStocks: Sanofi has lots of upside catalysts 
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-20-2009 @ 3:31PM
Jason said...
It's difficult to argue with Jim Rogers. He's one of the best.
1-20-2009 @ 3:31PM
clikdawg said...
Amen. You cannot climb out of a shit-hole -- ANY shit-hole -- by burrowing deeper into it.
Anyone who tells you different is fixin' to take yo' ass to the cleaners ...
1-20-2009 @ 4:58PM
Herrerasupply said...
Its simply a case of destroying the investment china made in buying US
Debt. And Later calling for a World
currency back by the dollar. US will
then Issue new currency and forgive
its debts to anyone.
1-20-2009 @ 5:27PM
clikdawg said...
Herrerasupply:
OK. Sure. And China will just permit this to happen?
I don't dispute that that's what we think we're doing, but it amounts to the economic equivalent of all-out nuclear war with China: The loser destroyed for the foreseeable future as a viable economic entity.
Bear in mind Clauswitz's definition of military war as a "continuation of policy by other means," and what you're talking about -- as world-wide economic conditions approach practical disintegration -- is a world war which will dwarf the two in the last century like Jupiter dwarfs its moons. The hand (if it is viable at all, which I doubt) would have to be played with incredibly pin-point precision to have a hope of avoiding global disaster -- a colossal bet initiated and captained by a bunch of two-bit gamblers who have shown no skill at all in pin-point anything, and have already taken their cut and have established safe-havens in case something goes, well, you know ... wrong.
But that's life, I guess -- little barons who wanna be Emperor Maximus playing "Risk" with real countries, real guns, and real lives.
And -- win or lose -- guess who's gonna be pickin' up the tab ...