Guest Post: The American Model Of “Growth”: Overbuilding And Poaching

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

Why has this doomed model of overbuilding and poaching sales become so dominant? Look no farther than the cheap-money policies of the Federal Reserve.

The rising Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and other simulacra of "growth" are masking the real model of growth in America: overbuilding and poaching, as in poaching customers and sales from competitors.

No matter how many outlets a company has, there's always room for a few hundred more somewhere. Now that there's a Starbucks on every corner, you might think the opportunities for expansion are limited. No way–now there are Starbucks in bookstores, Safeway supermarkets, subway stations (BART), etc.

Not only is there a coffee outlet of some sort everywhere you look (hey, how about a Starbucks in every Home Depot?), Starbucks is getting into everybody else's business as well–even occasionally hawking music CDs, for example, at least until CD sales plummeted to the point it wasn't worth poaching the declining sales.

Dollar stores are proliferating at a phenomenal rate, as are drug stores in various sizes and iterations–all aimed at poaching customers from WalMart and Target. There is a certain irony in this, as WalMart and Target expanded rapidly by poaching customers from the entire spectrum of retail competitors–supermarkets, department stores, drug stores, sporting goods, and so on.

Everybody's getting into everybody else's business. If there is a profit to be made, suddenly every gas station mini-mart is stocking the line of goods, as are dollar stores and drug stores coast-to-coast.

In the department store/luxury outlet space, the scrimmage for the top 10% and "aspirational" consumers is fierce. Macys, Nordstrom, et al. successfully poached the upper-middle class and "aspirational" consumers with credit (if they could buy luxury brands with discretionary cash, they wouldn't be aspiring to look wealthy, they would bewealthy) from mid-range retailers such as Sears and J.C. Penny.

Countless catalog retailers have opened discount outlets while still poaching customers from other bricks-and-mortar retailers with blizzards of catalogs pitching "crazy low prices" to the marginalized middle class who cannot afford luxury outlets but seek brands above the WalMart level.

Look no further than the enormous success of surf-watersports brands as evidence that an "active youth" brand can sell millions of units to paunchy shark-bait couch potatoes, effectively poaching customers from other sectors on the middle-class retail spectrum.

Specialty retailers are busy poaching customers from competitors, and if that fails then they merge. Witness the absurdly overcapacity office supply space. The fleeting success of BBQ World quickly spawns BBQ Galaxy and BBQ Universe, a manic cycle of overbuilding/poaching that ends in ruination of all three retailers, which then merge and close hundreds of (mostly empty) stores.

That is the operative model of "growth" in America: rapid expansion/overbuilding in pursuit of poaching customers from existing competitors, a strategy that leads to massive overcapacity/redundancy and declining profits that then leads to mergers and shuttering hundreds of redundant outlets.

This overbuilding is especially nonsensical given that the "Brown Truck Store" delivers virtually anything you want to your doorstep: The Inevitable Decline of Retail(September 19, 2012).

Why has this doomed model of overbuilding and poaching become so dominant?Look no farther than the cheap-money policies of the Federal Reserve: Take It To The Bank (The Burning Platform):

This is another classic case of mal-investment spurred by the Federal Reserve easy money policies, zero interest rates, and QEternity. Cheap money leads to bad investments. I’m all for competition between drug store chains and banks. I have my pick of multiple stores close to my house. There are clearly too many stores competing for a dwindling number of customers, with a dwindling supply of disposable income.

If this is the engine of "growth" in America, a period of degrowth will be needed to clear the system of unprofitable deadwood and Fed-incentivized malinvestment.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/ZoBSHJXRaAk/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Guest Post: The American Model Of "Growth": Overbuilding And Poaching

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

Why has this doomed model of overbuilding and poaching sales become so dominant? Look no farther than the cheap-money policies of the Federal Reserve.

The rising Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and other simulacra of "growth" are masking the real model of growth in America: overbuilding and poaching, as in poaching customers and sales from competitors.

No matter how many outlets a company has, there's always room for a few hundred more somewhere. Now that there's a Starbucks on every corner, you might think the opportunities for expansion are limited. No way–now there are Starbucks in bookstores, Safeway supermarkets, subway stations (BART), etc.

Not only is there a coffee outlet of some sort everywhere you look (hey, how about a Starbucks in every Home Depot?), Starbucks is getting into everybody else's business as well–even occasionally hawking music CDs, for example, at least until CD sales plummeted to the point it wasn't worth poaching the declining sales.

Dollar stores are proliferating at a phenomenal rate, as are drug stores in various sizes and iterations–all aimed at poaching customers from WalMart and Target. There is a certain irony in this, as WalMart and Target expanded rapidly by poaching customers from the entire spectrum of retail competitors–supermarkets, department stores, drug stores, sporting goods, and so on.

Everybody's getting into everybody else's business. If there is a profit to be made, suddenly every gas station mini-mart is stocking the line of goods, as are dollar stores and drug stores coast-to-coast.

In the department store/luxury outlet space, the scrimmage for the top 10% and "aspirational" consumers is fierce. Macys, Nordstrom, et al. successfully poached the upper-middle class and "aspirational" consumers with credit (if they could buy luxury brands with discretionary cash, they wouldn't be aspiring to look wealthy, they would bewealthy) from mid-range retailers such as Sears and J.C. Penny.

Countless catalog retailers have opened discount outlets while still poaching customers from other bricks-and-mortar retailers with blizzards of catalogs pitching "crazy low prices" to the marginalized middle class who cannot afford luxury outlets but seek brands above the WalMart level.

Look no further than the enormous success of surf-watersports brands as evidence that an "active youth" brand can sell millions of units to paunchy shark-bait couch potatoes, effectively poaching customers from other sectors on the middle-class retail spectrum.

Specialty retailers are busy poaching customers from competitors, and if that fails then they merge. Witness the absurdly overcapacity office supply space. The fleeting success of BBQ World quickly spawns BBQ Galaxy and BBQ Universe, a manic cycle of overbuilding/poaching that ends in ruination of all three retailers, which then merge and close hundreds of (mostly empty) stores.

That is the operative model of "growth" in America: rapid expansion/overbuilding in pursuit of poaching customers from existing competitors, a strategy that leads to massive overcapacity/redundancy and declining profits that then leads to mergers and shuttering hundreds of redundant outlets.

This overbuilding is especially nonsensical given that the "Brown Truck Store" delivers virtually anything you want to your doorstep: The Inevitable Decline of Retail(September 19, 2012).

Why has this doomed model of overbuilding and poaching become so dominant?Look no farther than the cheap-money policies of the Federal Reserve: Take It To The Bank (The Burning Platform):

This is another classic case of mal-investment spurred by the Federal Reserve easy money policies, zero interest rates, and QEternity. Cheap money leads to bad investments. I’m all for competition between drug store chains and banks. I have my pick of multiple stores close to my house. There are clearly too many stores competing for a dwindling number of customers, with a dwindling supply of disposable income.

If this is the engine of "growth" in America, a period of degrowth will be needed to clear the system of unprofitable deadwood and Fed-incentivized malinvestment.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/ZoBSHJXRaAk/story01.htm Tyler Durden

High school sports roundup

Boys basketball

McIntosh defeated Our Lady of Mercy 78-44 in a season-opening scrimmage last week. Sophomore Dishon Lowery led all scorers with 19 and chipped in 11 rebounds. Junior Phillip Venson scored 16, sophomore Jordan Lyons scored 9, sophomore Will Washington scored 8, and senior Connor Nash scored 7. “We shared the ball very well,” said McIntosh head coach Jason Eisele. “All eleven Chiefs who played scored in the contest.”

read more

via The Citizen http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/11-19-2013/high-school-sports-roundup

Jim Rogers: “Own Gold” Because “One Day, Markets Will Stop Playing This Game”

Jim Rogers hope-driven wish is that the politicians were smart enough at some point to say (to the central bankers), "we've got to stop this, this is going to be bad." He adds, on the incoming QEeen, "she’s not going to stop it, first of all she doesn't believe in stopping it, she thinks printing money is good." However, Rogers warns in this excellent interview with Birch Gold, "eventually the markets will just say, "We're not going to play this game anymore", and we'll have a serious collapse." The world is blinded by central bank liquidity, and as Rogers somewhat mockingly notes "if everybody says the sky is blue, I urge you to look out the window and see if it's blue because I have found that most people won't even bother to look out the window…" Rogers concludes, "everybody should own some precious metals as an insurance policy," because as he ominously warns, when 'it' collapses, "there will be big change.

 

 

 

Transcript (via Birch Gold Group) 

Rachel Mills, Birch Gold Group (BGG): This is Rachel Mills for Birch Gold, and I am very pleased to be joined today by Jim Rogers, legendary investor. Thank you so much Jim for joining me.

Jim Rogers: I am delighted to be here Rachel.

BGG: So today I wanted to talk a little about stock market highs and Quantitative Easing and inflation and a little bit of Federal Reserve and when is the taper is going to happen and currency wars. But there is one question that I don’t have to ask you, which you get asked a lot, I know, and that is what your secret to being so prescient in the marketplace?

“…if everybody says the sky is blue, I at least urge you to go and look out the window and see if it’s blue because I have found that most people won’t even bother to look out the window…”

JR: As far as I know, I’m not quite sure. I do know that I have learned over the years, always, when nearly everybody is thinking the same way that means somebody’s not thinking that means we got to start thinking about it and see if there’s not another way, another approach. Because if everybody says the sky is blue, I at least urge you to go and look out the window and see if it’s blue because I have found that most people won’t even bother to look out the window. If they see on the television or in the newspaper or something that everybody says the sky is blue, I at least urge them to look out the window. I find that most people don’t want to do their homework, that’s the first problem that many people have, is just doing simple homework.

“…no matter what we all know today, it’s not going to be true in 10 or 15 years…”

Second, I have learned that if everybody says the sky is blue and I go and look out the window and see that it is blue, I have also learned that, well wait a minute, if everybody knows the sky is blue, is that going to change? Now that everybody knows something, is it time to start thinking about “Well maybe tomorrow the sky will not be blue?” And again, most people say “Well everybody knows the sky is blue and that’s all we need to know.” No, it’s not all you need to know because another thing I have learned in my life is that no matter what we all know today, it’s not going to be true in 10 or 15 years. You pick any year in history and go back and then look to see what everybody thought was true in that year, 15 years later the world had changed enormously. Enormously. And yet in that particular year everybody was convinced that this is the way the world was. Pick 1900, 1930, 1950, any year you want to pick, and you will see that 15 years later, the world was totally, totally different from what everybody thought it was at that time.

So I have learned, for whatever reason, to know that change is coming, to know to think against the crowd, that the crowd is nearly always wrong and to try to think for myself. Now, I certainly make plenty of mistakes and have made plenty of mistakes in my life, but these are some of the things that I have learned, to try to think around the corner, try to think to the future if you want to be successful.

BGG: Yeah that’s right. And I read somewhere, tell me if this is true, that you were shorting real estate in 2006?

JR: Yes, yes, 2006, 2007, 2008. Yes, yes. I was short Fannie Mae, I was short all of the investment banks. I was short all the banks.

BGG: And I bet, were people rolling their eyes at you, were they laughing at you?

rogers 1252603c 300x187 Exclusive Interview with Jim Rogers: QE, currency wars, gold and inflation
Photo: www.telegraph.co.uk

JR: Oh very much so. I went on television quite a lot in those days saying it’s crazy. And I was on CNBC and I explained that I was short Fannie Mae and had been short Fannie Mae and Fannie Mae finally started to collapse. And the lady said to me, “Well it’s your fault that Fannie Mae is going down, it’s the short sellers that are causing problems with Fannie Mae.” And I explained to her, “Listen lady, if you really think that short sellers are making Fannie Mae collapse, you better get another job, because that’s not the way the world works.” Short sellers do not make Fannie Mae go from $70 to $0, I assure you, the only thing that can make that happen is serious fundamental problems. So yes, everybody knew I was nuts back in those days!

And then, they started blaming it on me and on the short sellers, all of the problems. Nobody likes to take responsibility for their mistakes, certainly not politicians, but it was clear that first they laugh at you, then they ridicule you and say it’s your fault and blame it on you. Eventually they all say, “Oh, well we knew that. We thought of it ourselves! We knew that Fannie Mae was a fraud.” But that’s a difficult and sometimes painful process.

BGG: Sounds like they were attributing more power to you than you actually have!

JR: It’d be wonderful if all I had to do was sell something short and it would go down. Unfortunately it usually goes up when I sell it short, my timing is usually pretty wrong.

BGG: I want to talk a little bit about currencies. It seems that all the major countries in the world are in this race to the bottom to devalue their currency relative to all the others to appease their export industry. Meanwhile, workers and savers are getting killed by the cost of living increases that this is causing. Do you have any observations or predictions about how this currency war is going to end, or can it continue somehow indefinitely? And who wins in a currency race to the bottom?

“Eventually the markets will just say, ‘We’re not going to play this game anymore’, and we’ll have a serious collapse.”

JR: Well, the first thing you need to know is that nobody ever wins a trade war, a currency war, which is just another kind of trade war. Everybody loses in the end, some may temporarily come out ahead but it’s temporary if nothing else. As you have pointed out, the cost of living of many people is going up, and it certainly is, my gosh, in Japan you have a currency that’s down 25% in a year. Well I assure you the Japanese are feeling that because everything that Japan imports has gone up fairly substantially AND even the things that they don’t import are up because the Japanese manufacturers and the Japanese producers can raise prices because they don’t have to worry about competing with the foreigners any more.

“We’ve got to stop this, this is going to be bad.”

So we’re all losing in currency wars. How long can it go on? Well, it can go on as long as politicians can continue to print money. The problem is, of course, eventually the markets will just say, “We’re not going to play this game anymore” and we’ll have a serious collapse. You and I can print money all day long, but at some point, you, I and everybody else is going to say, “Wait a minute, guys, this money is getting worse and worse and more and more worthless, so why don’t we stop playing this game?” I wish the politicians were smart enough at some point to say, “We’ve got to stop this, this is going to be bad.”

But unfortunately they never have, and probably never will. Mr. Bernanke is certainly not going to stop it, because he doesn’t want to go down in history as causing the collapse. Mrs. Yellen, when she comes in, she’s not going to stop it, first of all she doesn’t believe in stopping it, she thinks printing money is good. And she knows – I hope she’s smart enough to know – that if she stops, oh my gosh, it’s going to collapse. So she’s not going to stop. Nobody wants to go down as causing the collapse of the world. So I’m afraid this is going to go on until the market eventually says to them, “Okay, enough is enough,” we have a big collapse and then they’re all thrown out and we can start over.

“Eventually they will try to cut [QE], it will finally cause the collapse, at that point we will have a big change, because they will throw them out, whether it’s the politicians or the central bankers or whoever.”

BGG: Wow, that’s a painful scenario actually. Do you think there is any chance that Larry Summers would have stopped Quantitative Easing at all?

JR: Well, first of all it’s irrelevant because he’s not going to be Federal Reserve Chairman. Second, even if he started, you know, if somebody came in and said, “Okay, we’ve got a terrible problem, we’ve made horrible mistakes, now let’s change things.” And even if everybody in the world said, “You know, he’s right, we’ve got to do something” and they started, well, within a few months or a year or two, the pain would be pretty horrible and then everybody’s going to say, “Well we didn’t know the pain was going to be this bad, this is not what we signed up for.” And then the guy would either be thrown out or assassinated or who knows what!

BGG: Oh yeah, they would blame everything on whoever stopped the party.

JR: Yeah. At first they say “It’s fine, we want to do it”, but once the pain comes, the pain is going to get pretty serious. We had Mr. Volcker who came in, was told “stop the madness” back in the 1970s and he did. Well, Jimmy Carter got thrown out, because he was who had told him to do that, because the pain was so bad. Reagan of course thought it was wonderful, that pain was taking place because that got him elected. And it was help to clean up the problems. That’s what happens, you cause the pain and they throw you out.

BGG: So, you don’t think there is any way they’re gonna make good on their threats or promises to taper?

Rogers S 640x360 300x168 Exclusive Interview with Jim Rogers: QE, currency wars, gold and inflation
Photo: www.jimrogersinvestments.com

JR: They might, no I don’t. They might start, as I said, somewhere along the line they’re going to start doing it. But when the pain gets pretty serious, the lady or the person or whoever it is, is going to have real problems. Let’s say that in 2015, Yellen says, “We’ve got to stop this” and they start stopping it, well, at that point it’s going to be pretty serious for the parties in power and they’re going to get thrown out and the next guys will continue to taper because, as I’ve said, they got power because of the tapering and the problems, and they’ll clean up the problems.

But that’s the only way that you’re going to see it stop someday. The market is just going to say, “We don’t want to play.” That’s what happened with Jimmy Carter when he was in, everything was collapsing: bond yields were falling apart, you know, inflation was everywhere. “Thank you Mr. Carter, we don’t want to play this game anymore. It’s absurd.”

BGG: What tip-offs are you looking for for where the top of the market is and when would you start to see the collapse coming? Are there signs that you’re looking for?

JR: Well, I wish I was that smart or it was that easy. Back in the late 1970s, Mr. Volcker was told and he came in and said: “I am going to kill inflation because Mr. Carter has told me to.” And Mr. Carter was very clear that he had to stop inflation. I doubt if we’ll have that kind of scenario again but we would think, we would hope, that the Federal Reserve will announce, you know, that they publish their numbers so we can all see what’s happening. At the moment they are buying a trillion dollars a year – that’s a trillion with a “T” – of assets. Eventually we will see that they stop that if they do or slow it down.

What will probably happen is that they will slow it down at first to see what happens, and if things aren’t too bad at first – and they probably won’t be too bad at first – well what is likely to happen is they will slow it down, things will drop, and then they will rally and the Federal Reserve will say “Hey, this is not so bad, we can do it.” And they’ll cut some more. Things will drop again and then rally, because it will take a while for people to really believe how bad it can get, or will get. And so eventually they will try to cut [QE], it will finally cause the collapse, at that point we will have a big change, because they will throw them out, whether it’s the politicians or the central bankers or whoever … will continue because they like it, they got the job because of the collapse and then we’ll finally start over. But it may be really painful in the meantime.

“I’ve owned gold for many years, I’ve never sold any gold and I can’t imagine I ever will sell gold in my life because it is somewhat of an insurance policy.”

BGG: Sure. And when we do begin the process of starting over, whenever that happens, it will be really good to have something substantial, something real, something other than paper in your portfolio. And that’s what Birch Gold is trying to help people figuring out how to do. So, we’ve always said that precious metals are a type of insurance for the long term. I read in your interview in Barrons that you are holding gold right now and expecting maybe a buying opportunity to come up. Do you still feel that way?

JR: Yes, I’ve owned gold for many years, I’ve never sold any gold and I can’t imagine I ever will sell gold in my life because it is somewhat of an insurance policy. I hope that my daughters own my gold someday, I mean I owned gold, I’ve never sold any gold and if gold comes down and I expect it to go down, doesn’t mean it will, I’ll buy more. I’m certainly not going to sell.

“Everybody should own some precious metals as an insurance policy. So if they don’t have any right now, I would urge them to go buy something.”

BGG: Right. So what advice would you give someone who as of yet has no precious metals in their portfolio right now?

JR: Well, everybody should own some precious metals as an insurance policy. So if they don’t have any right now, I would urge them to go buy something, buy themselves a gold coin if nothing else, and see that it’s not going to hurt. It won’t hurt you to buy the first gold coin, the first silver coin, and from that you start accumulating as your own situation dictates.

First, do your homework, don’t buy gold because you heard me say it or even because you hear you say it. But if people don’t own they should start after they have done their homework. And then they will probably, if they do their homework, most people will then realize, “Oh my gosh, I better have insurance, and gold and silver may get me through serious problems ahead.”

BGG: Yeah. How do you feel about silver? Do you favor silver over gold? How do you feel?

JR: Well, silver is historically down 60% from its all-time highs, so yes, I would prefer silver at the moment because gold is down only what, 30 or 40% from its all-time highs.

BGG: Well, thank you so much for talking with me today. I think we will leave it there. Thank you so much, Jim Rogers.

JR: Thank you Rachel, anytime. Let’s do it again.

BGG: I would love to.

JR: Bye bye.

BGG : Bye, thank you!


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/XhOgPYyvzcw/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Jim Rogers: "Own Gold" Because "One Day, Markets Will Stop Playing This Game"

Jim Rogers hope-driven wish is that the politicians were smart enough at some point to say (to the central bankers), "we've got to stop this, this is going to be bad." He adds, on the incoming QEeen, "she’s not going to stop it, first of all she doesn't believe in stopping it, she thinks printing money is good." However, Rogers warns in this excellent interview with Birch Gold, "eventually the markets will just say, "We're not going to play this game anymore", and we'll have a serious collapse." The world is blinded by central bank liquidity, and as Rogers somewhat mockingly notes "if everybody says the sky is blue, I urge you to look out the window and see if it's blue because I have found that most people won't even bother to look out the window…" Rogers concludes, "everybody should own some precious metals as an insurance policy," because as he ominously warns, when 'it' collapses, "there will be big change.

 

 

 

Transcript (via Birch Gold Group) 

Rachel Mills, Birch Gold Group (BGG): This is Rachel Mills for Birch Gold, and I am very pleased to be joined today by Jim Rogers, legendary investor. Thank you so much Jim for joining me.

Jim Rogers: I am delighted to be here Rachel.

BGG: So today I wanted to talk a little about stock market highs and Quantitative Easing and inflation and a little bit of Federal Reserve and when is the taper is going to happen and currency wars. But there is one question that I don’t have to ask you, which you get asked a lot, I know, and that is what your secret to being so prescient in the marketplace?

“…if everybody says the sky is blue, I at least urge you to go and look out the window and see if it’s blue because I have found that most people won’t even bother to look out the window…”

JR: As far as I know, I’m not quite sure. I do know that I have learned over the years, always, when nearly everybody is thinking the same way that means somebody’s not thinking that means we got to start thinking about it and see if there’s not another way, another approach. Because if everybody says the sky is blue, I at least urge you to go and look out the window and see if it’s blue because I have found that most people won’t even bother to look out the window. If they see on the television or in the newspaper or something that everybody says the sky is blue, I at least urge them to look out the window. I find that most people don’t want to do their homework, that’s the first problem that many people have, is just doing simple homework.

“…no matter what we all know today, it’s not going to be true in 10 or 15 years…”

Second, I have learned that if everybody says the sky is blue and I go and look out the window and see that it is blue, I have also learned that, well wait a minute, if everybody knows the sky is blue, is that going to change? Now that everybody knows something, is it time to start thinking about “Well maybe tomorrow the sky will not be blue?” And again, most people say “Well everybody knows the sky is blue and that’s all we need to know.” No, it’s not all you need to know because another thing I have learned in my life is that no matter what we all know today, it’s not going to be true in 10 or 15 years. You pick any year in history and go back and then look to see what everybody thought was true in that year, 15 years later the world had changed enormously. Enormously. And yet in that particular year everybody was convinced that this is the way the world was. Pick 1900, 1930, 1950, any year you want to pick, and you will see that 15 years later, the world was totally, totally different from what everybody thought it was at that time.

So I have learned, for whatever reason, to know that change is coming, to know to think against the crowd, that the crowd is nearly always wrong and to try to think for myself. Now, I certainly make plenty of mistakes and have made plenty of mistakes in my life, but these are some of the things that I have learned, to try to think around the corner, try to think to the future if you want to be successful.

BGG: Yeah that’s right. And I read somewhere, tell me if this is true, that you were shorting real estate in 2006?

JR: Yes, yes, 2006, 2007, 2008. Yes, yes. I was short Fannie Mae, I was short all of the investment banks. I was short all the banks.

BGG: And I bet, were people rolling their eyes at you, were they laughing at you?

rogers 1252603c 300x187 Exclusive Interview with Jim Rogers: QE, currency wars, gold and inflation
Photo: www.telegraph.co.uk

JR: Oh very much so. I went on television quite a lot in those days saying it’s crazy. And I was on CNBC and I explained that I was short Fannie Mae and had been short Fannie Mae and Fannie Mae finally started to collapse. And the lady said to me, “Well it’s your fault that Fannie Mae is going down, it’s the short sellers that are causing problems with Fannie Mae.” And I explained to her, “Listen lady, if you really think that short sellers are making Fannie Mae collapse, you better get another job, because that’s not the way the world works.” Short sellers do not make Fannie Mae go from $70 to $0, I assure you, the only thing that can make that happen is serious fundamental problems. So yes, everybody knew I was nuts back in those days!

And then, they started blaming it on me and on the short sellers, all of the problems. Nobody likes to take responsibility for their mistakes, certainly not politicians, but it was clear that first they laugh at you, then they ridicule you and say it’s your fault and blame it on you. Eventually they all say, “Oh, well we knew that. We thought of it ourselves! We knew that Fannie Mae was a fraud.” But that’s a difficult and sometimes painful process.

BGG: Sounds like they were attributing more power to you than you actually have!

JR: It’d be wonderful if all I had to do was sell something short and it would go down. Unfortunately it usually goes up when I sell it short, my timing is usually pretty wrong.

BGG: I want to talk a little bit about currencies. It seems that all the major countries in the world are in this race to the bottom to devalue their currency relative to all the others to appease their export industry. Meanwhile, workers and savers are
getting killed by the cost of living increases that this is causing. Do you have any observations or predictions about how this currency war is going to end, or can it continue somehow indefinitely? And who wins in a currency race to the bottom?

“Eventually the markets will just say, ‘We’re not going to play this game anymore’, and we’ll have a serious collapse.”

JR: Well, the first thing you need to know is that nobody ever wins a trade war, a currency war, which is just another kind of trade war. Everybody loses in the end, some may temporarily come out ahead but it’s temporary if nothing else. As you have pointed out, the cost of living of many people is going up, and it certainly is, my gosh, in Japan you have a currency that’s down 25% in a year. Well I assure you the Japanese are feeling that because everything that Japan imports has gone up fairly substantially AND even the things that they don’t import are up because the Japanese manufacturers and the Japanese producers can raise prices because they don’t have to worry about competing with the foreigners any more.

“We’ve got to stop this, this is going to be bad.”

So we’re all losing in currency wars. How long can it go on? Well, it can go on as long as politicians can continue to print money. The problem is, of course, eventually the markets will just say, “We’re not going to play this game anymore” and we’ll have a serious collapse. You and I can print money all day long, but at some point, you, I and everybody else is going to say, “Wait a minute, guys, this money is getting worse and worse and more and more worthless, so why don’t we stop playing this game?” I wish the politicians were smart enough at some point to say, “We’ve got to stop this, this is going to be bad.”

But unfortunately they never have, and probably never will. Mr. Bernanke is certainly not going to stop it, because he doesn’t want to go down in history as causing the collapse. Mrs. Yellen, when she comes in, she’s not going to stop it, first of all she doesn’t believe in stopping it, she thinks printing money is good. And she knows – I hope she’s smart enough to know – that if she stops, oh my gosh, it’s going to collapse. So she’s not going to stop. Nobody wants to go down as causing the collapse of the world. So I’m afraid this is going to go on until the market eventually says to them, “Okay, enough is enough,” we have a big collapse and then they’re all thrown out and we can start over.

“Eventually they will try to cut [QE], it will finally cause the collapse, at that point we will have a big change, because they will throw them out, whether it’s the politicians or the central bankers or whoever.”

BGG: Wow, that’s a painful scenario actually. Do you think there is any chance that Larry Summers would have stopped Quantitative Easing at all?

JR: Well, first of all it’s irrelevant because he’s not going to be Federal Reserve Chairman. Second, even if he started, you know, if somebody came in and said, “Okay, we’ve got a terrible problem, we’ve made horrible mistakes, now let’s change things.” And even if everybody in the world said, “You know, he’s right, we’ve got to do something” and they started, well, within a few months or a year or two, the pain would be pretty horrible and then everybody’s going to say, “Well we didn’t know the pain was going to be this bad, this is not what we signed up for.” And then the guy would either be thrown out or assassinated or who knows what!

BGG: Oh yeah, they would blame everything on whoever stopped the party.

JR: Yeah. At first they say “It’s fine, we want to do it”, but once the pain comes, the pain is going to get pretty serious. We had Mr. Volcker who came in, was told “stop the madness” back in the 1970s and he did. Well, Jimmy Carter got thrown out, because he was who had told him to do that, because the pain was so bad. Reagan of course thought it was wonderful, that pain was taking place because that got him elected. And it was help to clean up the problems. That’s what happens, you cause the pain and they throw you out.

BGG: So, you don’t think there is any way they’re gonna make good on their threats or promises to taper?

Rogers S 640x360 300x168 Exclusive Interview with Jim Rogers: QE, currency wars, gold and inflation
Photo: www.jimrogersinvestments.com

JR: They might, no I don’t. They might start, as I said, somewhere along the line they’re going to start doing it. But when the pain gets pretty serious, the lady or the person or whoever it is, is going to have real problems. Let’s say that in 2015, Yellen says, “We’ve got to stop this” and they start stopping it, well, at that point it’s going to be pretty serious for the parties in power and they’re going to get thrown out and the next guys will continue to taper because, as I’ve said, they got power because of the tapering and the problems, and they’ll clean up the problems.

But that’s the only way that you’re going to see it stop someday. The market is just going to say, “We don’t want to play.” That’s what happened with Jimmy Carter when he was in, everything was collapsing: bond yields were falling apart, you know, inflation was everywhere. “Thank you Mr. Carter, we don’t want to play this game anymore. It’s absurd.”

BGG: What tip-offs are you looking for for where the top of the market is and when would you start to see the collapse coming? Are there signs that you’re looking for?

JR: Well, I wish I was that smart or it was that easy. Back in the late 1970s, Mr. Volcker was told and he came in and said: “I am going to kill inflation because Mr. Carter has told me to.” And Mr. Carter was very clear that he had to stop inflation. I doubt if we’ll have that kind of scenario again but we would think, we would hope, that the Federal Reserve will announce, you know, that they publish their numbers so we can all see what’s happening. At the moment they are buying a trillion dollars a year – that’s a trillion with a “T” – of assets. Eventually we will see that they stop that if they do or slow it down.

What will probably happen is that they will slow it down at first to see what happens, and if things aren’t too bad at first – and they probably won’t be too bad at first – well what is likely to happen is they will slow it down, things will drop, and then they will rally and the Federal Reserve will say “Hey, this is not so bad, we can do it.” And they’ll cut some more. Things will drop
again and then rally, because it will take a while for people to really believe how bad it can get, or will get. And so eventually they will try to cut [QE], it will finally cause the collapse, at that point we will have a big change, because they will throw them out, whether it’s the politicians or the central bankers or whoever … will continue because they like it, they got the job because of the collapse and then we’ll finally start over. But it may be really painful in the meantime.

“I’ve owned gold for many years, I’ve never sold any gold and I can’t imagine I ever will sell gold in my life because it is somewhat of an insurance policy.”

BGG: Sure. And when we do begin the process of starting over, whenever that happens, it will be really good to have something substantial, something real, something other than paper in your portfolio. And that’s what Birch Gold is trying to help people figuring out how to do. So, we’ve always said that precious metals are a type of insurance for the long term. I read in your interview in Barrons that you are holding gold right now and expecting maybe a buying opportunity to come up. Do you still feel that way?

JR: Yes, I’ve owned gold for many years, I’ve never sold any gold and I can’t imagine I ever will sell gold in my life because it is somewhat of an insurance policy. I hope that my daughters own my gold someday, I mean I owned gold, I’ve never sold any gold and if gold comes down and I expect it to go down, doesn’t mean it will, I’ll buy more. I’m certainly not going to sell.

“Everybody should own some precious metals as an insurance policy. So if they don’t have any right now, I would urge them to go buy something.”

BGG: Right. So what advice would you give someone who as of yet has no precious metals in their portfolio right now?

JR: Well, everybody should own some precious metals as an insurance policy. So if they don’t have any right now, I would urge them to go buy something, buy themselves a gold coin if nothing else, and see that it’s not going to hurt. It won’t hurt you to buy the first gold coin, the first silver coin, and from that you start accumulating as your own situation dictates.

First, do your homework, don’t buy gold because you heard me say it or even because you hear you say it. But if people don’t own they should start after they have done their homework. And then they will probably, if they do their homework, most people will then realize, “Oh my gosh, I better have insurance, and gold and silver may get me through serious problems ahead.”

BGG: Yeah. How do you feel about silver? Do you favor silver over gold? How do you feel?

JR: Well, silver is historically down 60% from its all-time highs, so yes, I would prefer silver at the moment because gold is down only what, 30 or 40% from its all-time highs.

BGG: Well, thank you so much for talking with me today. I think we will leave it there. Thank you so much, Jim Rogers.

JR: Thank you Rachel, anytime. Let’s do it again.

BGG: I would love to.

JR: Bye bye.

BGG : Bye, thank you!


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/XhOgPYyvzcw/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Fuel Imports Send Japan’s Deficit Careening To 3rd Worst On Record

USDJPY and Nikkei futures don’t know what to make of tonight’s data. Is it bad enough that we buy stocks (sell JPY) on the basis that Abe and Kuroda will have to do more or is it so bad that it ‘proves’ no matter what they do, the gig is up. It seems, by the reaction the latter as Japan’s trade balance collapses to the 3rd worst on record. Exports rose 18.6% (more than expected) but it is the imports that soared higher (26.1% vs 19.0% expectations) on the back of surging fuel costs. So, Abe got his inflation – on the cost push side (crushing margins) and not the animal-spirit-competitive exuberance demand-pull side. Perhaps it is time to rename it Abe-wrong-ics. Of course, we await Goldman’s blessing of the number as just wait one more quarter for the J-curve to turn up on this devaluation cycle… we wait patiently…

 

 

Seems like bad news is not good news in Japan…

 

as the slow painful detah of nation needing energy (of course) and having to pay for it in a currency that is increasingly worth-less (or worthless)…

 

Charts: Bloomberg


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/ECGrbYFsj58/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Fuel Imports Send Japan's Deficit Careening To 3rd Worst On Record

USDJPY and Nikkei futures don’t know what to make of tonight’s data. Is it bad enough that we buy stocks (sell JPY) on the basis that Abe and Kuroda will have to do more or is it so bad that it ‘proves’ no matter what they do, the gig is up. It seems, by the reaction the latter as Japan’s trade balance collapses to the 3rd worst on record. Exports rose 18.6% (more than expected) but it is the imports that soared higher (26.1% vs 19.0% expectations) on the back of surging fuel costs. So, Abe got his inflation – on the cost push side (crushing margins) and not the animal-spirit-competitive exuberance demand-pull side. Perhaps it is time to rename it Abe-wrong-ics. Of course, we await Goldman’s blessing of the number as just wait one more quarter for the J-curve to turn up on this devaluation cycle… we wait patiently…

 

 

Seems like bad news is not good news in Japan…

 

as the slow painful detah of nation needing energy (of course) and having to pay for it in a currency that is increasingly worth-less (or worthless)…

 

Charts: Bloomberg


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/ECGrbYFsj58/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Look Away

If you are still of the belief that the stock “market” is a market of stocks idiosyncratically valued based on the aggregate of investors weighted expectations of future earnings potential, we highly recommend you look away from the chart below. If, however, like Rick Santelli’s “something is wrong” comment or Carl Icahn’s “it’s all a mirage” perspective, you have some doubts, take a glimpse at the ‘fundamental’ reality you are betting your retirement on…

 

(h/t @Not_Jim_Cramer)

and as we noted earlier – this is with a falling USD… what happens (as with Europe) when the USD ramps next – on the back of another “Whatever it takes” moment from the ECB?


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/dz7YExiOCxk/story01.htm Tyler Durden

The Constitutional Right to Conscript a Wedding Photographer

Elaine Huguenin, a
New Mexico photographer, wants
the Supreme Court to hear her challenge to a state
anti-discrimination law that compels her to shoot gay weddings even
though she finds them morally objectionable. Huguenin, who faced a
discrimination complaint after turning away a lesbian couple,
argues that the law violates her First Amendment right to freedom
of speech by forcing her to endorse a message with which she
disagrees: that gay marriages should be celebrated. In a
column
about the case, New York Times legal writer
Adam Liptak claims “there are constitutional values on both sides
of the case: the couple’s right to equal treatment and Ms.
Huguenin’s right to free speech.” But the Constitution guarantees
equal treatment by the government, not by private
individuals or organizations. The 14th Amendment cannot justify
requiring photographers to treat all couples equally any more than
the First Amendment can justify requiring publishers to treat all
authors equally. By erroneously suggesting that deciding Huguenin’s
case means choosing between competing “constitutional values,”
Liptak lends cover to the American Civil Liberties Union, which in
this case is arguing that Huguenin’s civil liberties should be
overridden by a principle that cannot be found in the Bill of
Rights:

I asked Louise Melling, a lawyer at the American Civil
Liberties Union, which has a distinguished history of championing
free speech, how the group had evaluated the case.

Ms. Melling said the evaluation had required difficult choices.
Photography is expression protected by the Constitution, she said,
and Ms. Huguenin acted from “heartfelt convictions.”

But the equal treatment of gay couples is more important than
the free speech rights of commercial photographers, she said,
explaining why the A.C.L.U. filed a brief in the New
Mexico Supreme Court supporting the couple.

“This is a business,” Ms. Melling said. “At the end of the day,
it sells services for photographing weddings. This is like putting
up a sign that says ‘Heterosexual Couples Only.’ “

Wouldn’t someone who posted such a sign be exercising his
constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of
association? The ACLU may not like the message, but that
consideration has never stopped the organization from defending the
constitutional rights of Nazis and Klansmen. If it cannot bring
itself to stand up for Huguenin’s rights, it should at least have
the decency to sit this one out.

Scott Shackford discusses earlier stages of the case
here
 and
here
.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/19/the-constitutional-right-to-conscript-a
via IFTTT

3D Guns May Sideline the NRA, But Not Because It’s Funded by Gun Makers

3D-printed Liberator handgunSince 3D-printed guns first emerged on the scene,
clearly promising to render gun regulation more irrelevant than a
mandatory missionary-position law in a world full of blackout
curtains, scribblers phobic about things that go BANG!
have found solace in one small hope: At least it’ll cripple the
National Rifle Association! Their hopes rest on the repeated
assertion that the NRA is industry-funded, and DIY-gunmaking will
deprive nasty Merchants of Death™ of their customers, so then they
won’t prop-up their puppet astroturf organization. The NRA may or
may not lose relevance with the advance of technology, but it won’t
be because of bogus assertions that it’s a front group for the gun
industry, no matter how often the mantra is chanted.

The most recent assertion of the delusional meme comes from Rob
Enderle at TGDaily,
who wrote
:

The NRA, which is pretty rabid about any form of gun control, is
silent on this issue largely because it is funded by gun
manufacturers who really don’t want people printing copies of their
product rather than buying one. 

Josh Sager at Salon engaged in the same sort of
wishful thinking at Salon
:

Despite its claim to be a sportsmen’s civil rights group, the
NRA is funded in large part by gun manufacturers, whose motives and
goals don’t always overlap with those of the organization’s
membership.

And then there’s Adam L. Penenberg at PandoDaily who
wrote back in January
:

Does the NRA represent the views of its 4 million members, or is
it a front for the $12 billion gun industry comprised of
manufacturers, firearms dealers, and ammunition makers, whose
interests may diverge from those of the common member? Let’s follow
the money.

The problem with all of these lazy assertions is that they’re
not true. They appear, really, to be exercises in wishful thinking
by people who can’t believe so many Americans could support and
fund a civil liberties organization with views so opposed to those
of right-thinking scribblers.

Right-thinking scribblers who don’t bother to do any
fact-checking, that is. In fact, there’s a handy place they can
investigate their thesis: The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s
FactCheck.org (not part of the right-wing conspiracy, according to
the latest memo). Way back on January 15,
FactCheck.org debunked the NRA-as-a-tool-of-the-gun-industry
nonsense
:

In arguing that the NRA “represents gun manufacturers” and not
“gun owners anymore,” Sen. Christopher Murphy discounted NRA
membership dues as “less than half” of NRA funding and instead
elaborated on how the NRA makes “tens of millions of dollars off of
the purchases of guns.” He said, “They pay their salaries off of
these gun purchases.”

But gun customers voluntarily decide if they want to
contribute to NRA organizations when they purchase a gun, just as
they voluntarily decide to join the NRA and pay dues. And much of
the contributions made during gun sales is used to fund community
programs, such as gun safety, law enforcement training and hunter
education — not salaries.

The piece went on to point out:

The NRA Foundation and the NRA Institute of Legislative Action
each operate separate fundraising programs that allow gun customers
at participating gun stores to “round up” the purchase price to the
nearest dollar as a contribution. Some customers may be asked
instead, depending on the company making the sale, to “add a buck
for shooting’s future” — much in the same way that some food stores
ask for small donations to fight cancer or hunger when customers
check out. …

The NRA Foundation’s 990 form filed with the IRS for 2010 shows it
raised nearly $23.4 million in total revenue and provided more than
2,200 in grants for community programs for hunters, competitive
shooters, gun collectors, law enforcement, and women and youth
groups, including the Boy Scouts and 4-H clubs. In all, $21.2
million went for grants — most of it (nearly $12.6 million) to the
NRA itself for “[e]ducation, training, range development, youth
programs, [and] equipment,” while the rest went to the community
programs and groups.

The NRA Foundation has no staff and pays no salaries.

The NRA-ILA, which is the lobbying arm of the NRA, operates a
“round-up” program with fewer participating companies, although it
has been in existence for longer. Its program was the brainchild of
gun store owner Larry Potterfield, the founder and CEO of Midway
USA in Missouri. In a video on his website, Potterfield says he
started the program in 1992 and the money raised from his customers
goes into the “Endowment for the Protection of the Second
Amendment.” A few other companies have since joined the program,
but Midway customers are still the largest contributors by far. In
a Dec. 7, 2012, press release, the company said its customers have
donated $7.6 million to the NRA lobbying group since 1992. The
program has a balance of nearly $9.5 million, including
contributions from gun customers at other stores, the press release
says.

The National Rifle Association itself, independent of the
educational foundation and the lobbying group, collected almost
half of its $227 million in revenues in 2010 from membership dues
and and program fees.

Keep in mind that the organization has
five million members
. The American Civil Liberties Union, by
contrast, the preeminent civil liberties organization in the
country, has around 500,000
members
. That’s not to belittle the ACLU—it does excellent work
(and some things with which I strongly disagree, as does the
NRA)—but it’s not that hard to raise hundreds of millions of
dollars when you have millions of members.

The NRA does get industry contributions, but
FactCheck.org points out that it’s on the order of a million bucks
here and there. It’s a membership-driven organization, whether or
not other people like what those members support.

But all of these articles sighing hopefully over the eventual
death of the NRA have another thing in common: Recognition that 3D
printing is making the old policy arguments pointless by making the
manufacture and ownership of guns a private activity that the law
can’t touch. This is likely going to be true of all
physical objects. As TGDaily’s Enderle writes, “the more folks try
to make printing guns illegal the more creative ways 3D printer
users will likely come up with to get around or actively avoid the
law.”

He adds, “This might actually end up accelerating the move away
from traditionally purchased guns because you could do things like
custom design them…” Again, this could well be true of
manufacturing all sorts of items, turning the creation of
smaller physical objects into a DIY activity, with design and
larger, more-complex manufacturing retaining a commercial
aspect.

Why is the NRA “silent” on this issue? I’m not sure that it
is—I’ve repeatedly discussed the issue on NRA News’s Cam & Co., and they’ve

linked to my pieces on the issue
along with other issues. But
do think the organization, along with almost everybody else, has
been blindsided by a fast-evolving phenomenon that’s less than a
year old. The first 3D-printed Liberator was fired in the spring of
this year.

And this fast technologicvelopment might actually cause the NRA
to fade away, at least in its political-lobbying persona. It’s
original character as an educational organization likely has a
future no matter what. After all, when an activity slips beyond the
reach of policy, there’s no reason to engage in or fund policy
debates. If laws and regulations are rendered irrelevant, there’s
no incentive to expend resources on changing them.

But then, the same can be said of the gun control
groups.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/19/3d-guns-may-sideline-the-nra-but-not-bec
via IFTTT