PDA

View Full Version : Jim Rogers Bloomberg interview



FRED
09-29-07, 10:44 AM
We're trying to post this interview with Jim Rogers... We were told it's very good... but can't seem to get the audio working.

http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?clipSRC=mms://media2.bloomberg.com/cache/vjUSJ.lwS8e0.asf

Anyone know about another source?

Rajiv
09-29-07, 12:27 PM
Don't get the audio either!. Can you give some more reference as to the date, content etc. to enable the location of alternate sources?

Sapiens
09-29-07, 12:46 PM
Be careful about misinformation!

The Fed is relevant, indeed very relevant to all that use the “d0llar” monetary unit. Jim’s beneficial interests are not yours or my beneficial interests. One must learn to critically analyze the facts as to how they apply to your particular interests and well-being.

Jim Nickerson
09-29-07, 01:23 PM
Be careful about misinformation!

The Fed is relevant, indeed very relevant to all that use the “d0llar” monetary unit. Jim’s beneficial interests are not yours or my beneficial interests. One must learn to critically analyze the facts as to how they apply to your particular interests and well-being.


Sapiens, I truly hate to pick on you, which I have done and for which to a degree I feel badly, but I persist with the dilemma of whether you are someone who really knows something that is exceptional or whether you are just speculating about some of the things you have posted.

How is anyone to consider you more credible than Rogers, when at least Rogers is a known entity? Your advice regarding what may be his "beneficial interests" is not bad advice, but then I believe one must ask what are your interests and from what possible position of knowledge do you give advice?

Why is the information put out by Rogers perhaps more a form of disinformation that anything you may have posted on these fora?

Rogers is not the only person who may qualify as being an authority who questions the relevancy of the FOMC. John Hussman http://hussmanfunds.com/weeklyMarketComment.html probably in each of his last 3 commentaries has suggested that the importance of the Fed is way overstated by Wall Street and the main stream media. Frankly, so far, I have not gained the economic intelligence to know who is correct in the argument of Fed being relevant in actually providing liquidity or is it not. Hussman's arguments strike me as relevant, and I am sure he is a whole lot smarter about these things than I but certainly that does not make him correct.

It is not uncommon for any number of people on these fora to put forth their own arguments regarding statements they support or with which they disagree. They give their reasons or put forth links to articles that support their positions. I think it is through such discourse that some posters here have gained higher levels of credibility.

jk
09-29-07, 01:31 PM
try:

http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?clipSRC=mms://media2.bloomberg.com/cache/vjUSJ.lwS8e0.asf

i wonder why he did the interview; he seems irritable.

Rajiv
09-29-07, 01:37 PM
Still no sound!

zoog
09-29-07, 01:41 PM
Still no sound!

The sound works for me on these links... I don't know why some people can't hear it.:confused:

jk
09-29-07, 01:50 PM
Still no sound!
i got both sound and picture at the link i posted.

Spartacus
09-29-07, 10:38 PM
Are you on a non-MS system?

the audio is an MS codec, wmv9dmo or some such.

Still does not work on 64 bit Linux and I assume 64 bit BSD systems (CPU and OS are all 64 bit)

vlc and mplayer do support it on 32 bit systems.


Still no sound!

EDIT: GStreamer might be able to do it on 64 bit CPUs running in 64 bit mode, haven't checked yet.

Spartacus
09-29-07, 10:53 PM
Hussman sounds plausible but I'm not 100% convinced.

Price is generally set at the margin. If the last 10 house sales in a market were down 30%, it doesn't matter if there were thousands of sales at the pre-drop levels.

And if one knows which marginal prices to set to get maximum leverage, how much money does one need?

EDIT: ignore below, I confused Hussman with Sapiens
Anyway, what's interesting is we have 2 people here arguing 2 opposite sides of an issue - Tet's posts read as if he thinks "the elites" (the FED or the FED's true puppetmasters) are using the FED to acquire real assets while devaluing all other peoples' assets

Sapiens' posts read as if he thinks some elites use the system to transfer wealth to themselves, but since he claims the FED is powerless, the only conclusion I can draw is that "they" aren't using the FED, or if they are, "they" will not get what they want this time around


Sapiens, I truly hate to pick on you, which I have done and for which to a degree I feel badly, but I

zoog
09-29-07, 11:13 PM
try:

http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?clipSRC=mms://media2.bloomberg.com/cache/vjUSJ.lwS8e0.asf

i wonder why he did the interview; he seems irritable.

Maybe he's always like that in interviews? Maybe it's because the satellite delay drives him nuts and the interviewers start talking over him mid-sentence?

Here is another Bloomberg interview with him on 9/24

http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?clipSRC=mms://media2.bloomberg.com/cache/vohtpFRKzlUo.asf

The best part::D


Would you buy someone's subprime loan, here in September of 2007? I wouldn't, not with your money.

FRED
09-30-07, 12:27 AM
Maybe he's always like that in interviews? Maybe it's because the satellite delay drives him nuts and the interviewers start talking over him mid-sentence?

Here is another Bloomberg interview with him on 9/24

http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?clipSRC=mms://media2.bloomberg.com/cache/vohtpFRKzlUo.asf

The best part::D

EJ's interviewed him three times. He gets cranky if you are not well prepared and don't ask pointed questions. Haven't been able to listen to this one on my 64 bit machine. (Thx, Spartacus, for figuring out the problem.)

So... what's he say?

Spartacus
09-30-07, 01:13 AM
I listened and since there was nothing really new or use-able for me I've promptly forgotten it. ; )

from memory,
he's Still bullish on commodities, but
peak prices on a couple of commodities (wheat?) , so he doesn't want to buy those

FED should have raised, not lowered,

China still a good bet but not as much as before

he owns Silver and Gold but other bets probably better


PS - I would have thought an MS operating system on a 64 bit machine would be able to play the audio - or are you saying you machine is a non-MS 64 bit system?

FRED
09-30-07, 10:13 AM
I listened and since there was nothing really new or use-able for me I've promptly forgotten it. ; )

from memory,
he's Still bullish on commodities, but
peak prices on a couple of commodities (wheat?) , so he doesn't want to buy those

FED should have raised, not lowered,

China still a good bet but not as much as before

he owns Silver and Gold but other bets probably better


PS - I would have thought an MS operating system on a 64 bit machine would be able to play the audio - or are you saying you machine is a non-MS 64 bit system?

Thanks for the summary.

New Macs are dual processor 64 bit machines.

Rajiv
09-30-07, 11:10 AM
The problem was only with that particular video. Not with other bloomberg videos. So I don't believe that it is a codec issue. It could be a bit flip issue in that particular video -- which caused unix based system not to produce the audio.

GRG55
09-30-07, 11:59 AM
EJ's interviewed him three times. He gets cranky if you are not well prepared and don't ask pointed questions. Haven't been able to listen to this one on my 64 bit machine. (Thx, Spartacus, for figuring out the problem.)

So... what's he say?

All links, including Fred's original post worked fine for me.
One just needs to listen to idiot question 2 (he had to repeat his answer to question 1) followed by idiot question 3 (Are the markets relevant? She's talking to Jim Rogers for gawd sake...) to see why he got irritated.

This interview was done on Sept 18 prior to the FOMC decision announcment. The one thing I noticed that was different from other interviews is that he emphatically repeats several times "sell (get out of) the US$". Check out his body language and eye contact when he says it... :eek:

This interview was taped just before the Sept 18 FOMC decision. Here's a link to the audio only of the Marc Faber Bloomberg interview later on the same day. Not sure if this isn't already posted somewhere else officially on this site Fred. (I stuck both these onto a posting buried in here somewhere about a week ago)

http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.asxx?clip=mms://media2.bloomberg.com/cache/vCoNtU.D0pcE.asf

Jim Nickerson
09-30-07, 01:02 PM
All links, including Fred's original post worked fine for me.
One just needs to listen to idiot question 2 (he had to repeat his answer to question 1) followed by idiot question 3 (Are the markets relevant? She's talking to Jim Rogers for gawd sake...) to see why he got irritated.

This interview was done on Sept 18 prior to the FOMC decision announcment. The one thing I noticed that was different from other interviews is that he emphatically repeats several times "sell (get out of) the US$". Check out his body language and eye contact when he says it... :eek:

This interview was taped just before the Sept 18 FOMC decision. Here's a link to the audio only of the Marc Faber Bloomberg interview later on the same day. Not sure if this isn't already posted somewhere else officially on this site Fred. (I stuck both these onto a posting buried in here somewhere about a week ago)

http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.asxx?clip=mms://media2.bloomberg.com/cache/vCoNtU.D0pcE.asf

The link to Faber gave me a IE window (blank) and then opened a windows media player window and I got good picture and sound. Faber's interview is a VERY GOOD INTERVIEW that lasts 15 minutes, but with the WinMedPlayer at x2 speed, it went quickly.

How are you guys seeing the dates these videos were recorded?

Jim Nickerson
09-30-07, 01:48 PM
Hussman sounds plausible but I'm not 100% convinced.

Price is generally set at the margin. If the last 10 house sales in a market were down 30%, it doesn't matter if there were thousands of sales at the pre-drop levels.

And if one knows which marginal prices to set to get maximum leverage, how much money does one need?

EDIT: ignore below, I confused Hussman with Sapiens
Anyway, what's interesting is we have 2 people here arguing 2 opposite sides of an issue - Tet's posts read as if he thinks "the elites" (the FED or the FED's true puppetmasters) are using the FED to acquire real assets while devaluing all other peoples' assets

Sapiens' posts read as if he thinks some elites use the system to transfer wealth to themselves, but since he claims the FED is powerless, the only conclusion I can draw is that "they" aren't using the FED, or if they are, "they" will not get what they want this time around

9/30/07

Here are the opening paragraphs from Hussman's note for tomorrow 10/1/07 http://hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc071001.htm



October 1, 2007
Recession Risks - Increasing but not Decisive
John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
All rights reserved and actively enforced.
Reprint Policy (http://www.hussmanfunds.com/html/reprints.htm)

A postscript from last week's comment: On Thursday, September 27th, the Federal Reserve entered into $6 billion in 14 day repos and $20 in 7 day repos. It also rolled over two small, shorter-term repos from earlier in the week that will roll over again on Monday – probably at least $10 billion, with an aggregate of $30 billion by Thursday October 4th, to roll over existing repurchases that come due at that time. As of last week, the total amount of Fed repurchases outstanding is $44.75 billion. This is close to the total quantity of reserves in the U.S. banking system (which includes these repo proceeds). Meanwhile, total borrowings of depository institutions from the Fed – the much vaunted “liquidity” lent by the Fed at the Discount Rate – dropped from $2.4 billion to just $306 million last week, which is about the norm of recent years.

In short, next to nothing is actually lent through the discount window. Meanwhile, the Fed's open market operations are not injections of new liquidity, but a continuous rollover that finances a stable level of reserves, at a level that is negligible in relation to $6.3 trillion in total bank loans. If investors want to believe the superstition that Fed actions have anything but psychological effect, they should at least be prepared to demonstrate a specific mechanism by which observable FOMC operations exert that effect. It certainly is not through meaningful “injections of liquidity” into the banking system.

jk
09-30-07, 02:47 PM
All links, including Fred's original post worked fine for me.
One just needs to listen to idiot question 2 (he had to repeat his answer to question 1) followed by idiot question 3 (Are the markets relevant? She's talking to Jim Rogers for gawd sake...) to see why he got irritated.

This interview was done on Sept 18 prior to the FOMC decision announcment. The one thing I noticed that was different from other interviews is that he emphatically repeats several times "sell (get out of) the US$". Check out his body language and eye contact when he says it... :eek:

This interview was taped just before the Sept 18 FOMC decision. Here's a link to the audio only of the Marc Faber Bloomberg interview later on the same day. Not sure if this isn't already posted somewhere else officially on this site Fred. (I stuck both these onto a posting buried in here somewhere about a week ago)

http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.asxx?clip=mms://media2.bloomberg.com/cache/vCoNtU.D0pcE.asf


faber and rogers are making identical points. the only difference is that faber finds it amusing.

GRG55
09-30-07, 04:17 PM
The link to Faber gave me a IE window (blank) and then opened a windows media player window and I got good picture and sound. Faber's interview is a VERY GOOD INTERVIEW that lasts 15 minutes, but with the WinMedPlayer at x2 speed, it went quickly.

How are you guys seeing the dates these videos were recorded?

Ooops. Computer operator problems - I went back and figured out what was set wrong so I couldn't see the picture. :o

Re: Date of videos, I found both on the Bloomberg website the morning after the Fed decision. It's clear they were recorded before the FOMC release as both interviewers asked them "what do you think the Fed will do today..."

GRG55
09-30-07, 04:36 PM
faber and rogers are making identical points. the only difference is that faber finds it amusing.

Both grizzled veterans, so interesting to see the congruence. They both used to be on the annual Barron's Roundtable a few years ago, but from the Rogers interview (the part about DJIA expected decline) I got the impression that they may not have spoken to each other for a while. One thing - they both like sugar and cotton right now; and they both thought the Fed should raise to protect the currency.

And as you pointed out on the "1997 ?!" thread in July, Richard Russell (another grizzled veteran) is also strongly in the gold camp (and has been for quite some time).

By the way, I may be biased from my time living here, but I wouldn't be storing any physical gold in Dubai (as Faber suggested). A lot of Indians and Russians do that from what my banker friends tell me, but the Arabs don't leave it around these parts, be assured. It's either in London or Zurich, and more recently Australia. The Islamic bomb to worry about is not the one Iran may be building, but the one Pakistan already has. That's a much more unstable and unpredictable political situation than Iran - not that you're ever likely to hear that on Fox - and not that far from here...

jk
09-30-07, 07:26 PM
Both grizzled veterans, so interesting to see the congruence. They both used to be on the annual Barron's Roundtable a few years ago, but from the Rogers interview (the part about DJIA expected decline) I got the impression that they may not have spoken to each other for a while.
re the differences about the djia's possible decline- faber has said the djia might drop to 12,000 nominally while experiencing more of real decline. rogers was focused on the number itself as not being that big a decline. [remember that in 1966-1980 the djia went from 1000 to 1000 along a most exciting trajectory, and in the process lost about 80% of its value to inflation.]


edit: i just noticed the sobriquet that's been added to my id here -:eek::rolleyes::D

Jim Nickerson
09-30-07, 07:38 PM
re the differences about the djia's possible decline- faber has said the djia might drop to 12,000 nominally while experiencing more of real decline. rogers was focused on the number itself as not being that big a decline. [remember that in 1966-1980 the djia went from 1000 to 1000 along a most exciting trajectory, and in the process lost about 80% of its value to inflation.]


edit: i just noticed the sobriquet that's been added to my id here -:eek::rolleyes::D

To choose to use "sobriquet" to describe it, shows it is appropriate.

jk, I see it as a fact, that of all the people who post here you are one of the more thoughtful, and at least to me your thoughts are quite circumspect which I see as very good. I continue to appreciate the time and thought you put into contributions here. With an expression like that, one might think I own this goddammed place. Now, jk, if you could only get it down to where the "shift-keys" are, you'd be nearly perfect.

jk
09-30-07, 07:42 PM
Now, jk, if you could only get it down to where the "shift-keys" are, you'd be nearly perfect.
........:D:p

jim,
i'd like to nominate you for the title: itulip curmudgeon



A curmudgeon's reputation for malevolence is undeserved. They're neither warped nor evil at heart. They don't hate mankind, just mankind's absurdities. They're just as sensitive and soft-hearted as the next guy, but they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of misanthropy. They ease the pain by turning hurt into humor. . . . . . They attack maudlinism because it devalues genuine sentiment. . . . . . Nature, having failed to equip them with a servicable denial mechanism, has endowed them with astute perception and sly wit.
Curmudgeons are mockers and debunkers whose bitterness is a symptom rather than a disease. They can't compromise their standards and can't manage the suspension of disbelief necessary for feigned cheerfulness. Their awareness is a curse.
Perhaps curmudgeons have gotten a bad rap in the same way that the messenger is blamed for the message: They have the temerity to comment on the human condition without apology. They not only refuse to applaud mediocrity, they howl it down with morose glee. Their versions of the truth unsettle us, and we hold it against them, even though they soften it with humor. - JON WINOKUR except he's wrong about holding it against you.

FRED
10-02-07, 12:58 AM
Ok, try this...


http://www.itulip.com/movies/rogers.wmv