Jim Rogers Tells CNBC To Change Its Name To CommoditesNBC, Sees Oil At $150, Is Short Nasdaq ETFs, Expects More Governments To Collapse

Tyler Durden's picture

Jim Rogers, in his latest interview, cuts right to the chase: "I don't own many equities, because I don't know what is going to happen in the world economy. I expect more currency turmoil, more social unrest, more governments collapsing. So I am investing in currencies and commodities rather than stocks." Pretty much like everyone else, as we have been suggesting for quite a while. Rogers snaps at the trademark CNBC question of what he would be investing in: "I have been explaining to everybody on CNBC for a year and half or two now that food prices are going to go through the roof, they're going to explode. We have serious shortage of everything developing, including shortages of farmers... The average age of farmers in one major agricultural state is 58 years old. In 10 years it will be 68 years old. In parts of Japan they have no farmers... It takes 7 years for a coffee tree to mature. Orange trees, palm trees: you don't just suddenly snap your fingers and suddenly get some more palm oil. All of this takes time." So all those who believe that the surge in people rushing to fill the ag arbitrage holes will produce immediate results, may need to wait 3-7 years, dependant on access to manure.

On whether this is not a demand-led inflation in commodity prices:

Whenever governments have printed money throughout history, people put their money in real assets, whether it's rice or silver or natural gas. People protect themselves, they don't just say "give me some more paper money." And if you say it's not demand: go to India, go to China, see how people are changing their lives and using more." As for supply: "Commodities are based on supply and demand. You can have demand go down, but if supply goes down more you are going to have a bull market."

Not surprisingly, Rogers see oil at $150, and the exchange between Rogers and some CNBC guy discussing the role of speculators (it is all the evil speculators' fault, never the Chairsaint) is worth watching the clip alone.

Rogers' response to CNBC's desperate attempt to get him to list a stock or two for the lemmings to buy into, the response is priceless: "Commodities have outperformed stock by 10 times over the last 10-12 years. Why aren't you doing only commodities. It's outperformed stocks by 1,000%. To me it's pretty simple, you should change the name to CommoditiesNBC."

And, finally, his response to what his stock exposure is is not what CNBC wanted to hear. "I am short emerging markets ETFs, short Nasdaq ETFs."

Brilliant as always.

h/t etrader

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Michael's picture

17.3+ % U-6 unemployed people don't drive to work everyday, and don't tool around as much shopping for trinkets and bobbles.

kengland's picture

He's tripping over his teeth? Lisping. Somethings up with his mouth

66Sexy's picture

what's NOT getting coverage are the multi state natural gas shortages

tmosley's picture

Yup.  A colleague of mine has a second home in NM which apparently froze over when rolling blackouts in Texas caused Natural gas to NM to be shut off.  He is getting his water pipes blown out now.  Hopefully none of them burst.  

Just a tiny example.  A lot of people were put in real danger by this, not just "rich assholes" second homes (he is a very nice guy, and a liberal before those of you who hate me come out pissing all over my friend).

Michael's picture

Some eco-fascists have to learn the hard way, we have global cooling now. Not necessarily your friend.

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

No one wants to admit they have been duped. When you look around, that is what you are seeing.  Millions of people who have  a feeling something is wrong (like the movie the Matrix) but they don't know quite what it is, because admitting you believed a lie is tantamount to calling yourself stupid.  Doesn't happen every day! Whether it comes to trusting the gov't, the Fed, or the global warming 'tards, no one wants to admit to having been duped!

Any way, check out the latest from the Capital Research Institute:


Why the Fed Can't (And Won't) Raise Interest Rates

The signs of currency devaluation are all around us.  Yesterday (Feb. 4th) commodities surged.  Gold surged too. Are we really supposed to believe there is that much extra demand for commodities and gold, or their supply that restricted, that prices have been positively skyrocketing these last few months?  Of course not.  What has been happening is a devaluation in the underlying currency these commodities are priced in, the US Dollar.  Currency depreciation can be tough to spot in an environment such as the current one, as most people will look for currencies to appreciate vs other currencies.  What they are forgetting is that we live in a historic period where every nation of economic significance is involved in a no-holds-barred (currency) race to the bottom.  That means currency exchange rates may stay stable relative to each other, but not to commodities, nor to the one currency no central banker can create out of thin air, gold (and silver).

What is required to stop such runaway inflation in basic commodities?  Well, since it is being caused by devaluation of currency, the natural way to stop it would be to ‘revalue’ your currency, or in other words, make it more valuable.  In short, the USD needs to appreciate, not depreciate like it has since the crisis in 2008.  What is the easiest way to get a currency to appreciate, raising interest rates of course! So even though we clearly see conditions have arisen that naturallyare countered through an interest rate hike it is unlikely the Fed will raise rates significantly (if at all!).

Buck Johnson's picture

Your correct, people can't admit that they where taken for a ride.  All those old and young people will see how bad things are and will go nuts.

Michael's picture

You can't hide the real unemployment number.

The true figure is reflected in the voting booth.

Freddie's picture

Your liberal buddy voted for this.  His boy O**ma fu*ked the world.  Karma bitchez!

Drag Racer's picture

full spread of blowtron torpedos

Larry Darrell's picture




yabyum's picture

I follow ZeroHedge, and trust my gut. Right wing radio assholes, not so much.

Larry Darrell's picture

You have to understand the PROCESS of finding the truth.  I used to listen to Rush a lot and was plugged into the Red Vs Blue game.  After searching for the truth after the bank bailouts, I eventually ended up here.  I now understand that the Red VS Blue is a distraction.

Maybe even Rush will begin to realize the truth: that he has spent his career defending people who are the problem.  I wouldn't bet on that, but maybe some of his listeners (who don't have their entire careers on the line with this debate) will come here and come to the awakening that I have.

Michael's picture

I take the black and white pill.

tamboo's picture

we're pretty much surrounded by filthy cryptojews:
rush, alex jones, glenn beck, all those delightful snl
type comedians, palin, obongo, supreme court, cabinet, congress....barf.

DaveyJones's picture

it's good to know you're objective :/

Seer's picture

"Maybe even Rush will begin to realize the truth: that he has spent his career defending people who are the problem."

What gets me is that people believe that only one "side" is lying, and that "their" side tells the truth.

It's like this: the rich and empowered are both because they TAKE from others.  Rush, and anoyone else telling everyone what the "truth" is, isn't in business to tell us the (real) truths, for the simple reason that they'd be out of jobs (and, being the lazy fucks that they are, would have to actually work for a living!), not to mention that people can't handle the truth.  So... if anyone is listening to any of these people then please do so ONLY as entertainment!  Otherwise one has one's head in the sand, where, it has been proven, the "truth" from these folks seem to be amplified (only in the sand).

Irwin Fletcher's picture

The rich and empowered take from others, and give to others as well. Almost everybody does. The balance of give and take may be questioned, especially if the 'give' is directed toward banksters and the 'take' is directed toward the working man, but you can't say people like Darth Blankfein and Warren Buffett are lazy fucks. And nobody who took Limbaugh seriously yesterday is going to stop taking him seriously today because they suddenly realize he's an entertainer. Small steps, Seer, but steps in the right direction.

NOTW777's picture

LOL so you pick and choose your truth

NOTW777's picture

dont trust your gut

lies from the left wont help you

Calmyourself's picture

If you bother to do any research it will not matter where you happen to stumble across the truth.. 

Seer's picture

Yup!  Party/ideological blinders will lead one over a cliff.  Diversification in all things.  There's good in everything, I aim to pick the good stuff and reject the bad stuff.

The Navigator's picture

clenched teeth, dealing with morons.

HarryWanger's picture

I believe U-6 fell to 16.1% in this report.

HarryWanger's picture

Let's look at the actual report:

"The number of workers only able to find part time jobs (or have had their hours cut for economic reasons) declined to 8.407 million in January. 

These workers are included in the alternate measure of labor underutilization (U-6) that declined sharply to 16.1% in January from 16.7% in December."

Attitude_Check's picture

Even U-6 drops off folks who haven't found work for an extended time.  If you shrink the denominator the fraction "looks better".  The real tell is the participation rate -- which is at a 26 year low.  The fewer people working (for whatever reason) the less consumption possible.  Simple math and logic really, you should try it sometime.

holmes's picture

That's to be expected. Harry knew that.

LowProfile's picture

Hey douchebag!

Every time you post unemployment propaganda, I'm going to post this http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

Just in case there's a new ZH reader that hasn't caught on to the fact you are a douchbag filled with runny shit.

SheepDog-One's picture

You 'believe' that Harry? Well just look at the number on the BLS website saying U6 = 17.3%.

BorisTheBlade's picture

Investment based on the belief is a bad investment, not automatically of course, but most likely. On the other hand, if one sticks to the good understanding of the physical economy, he/she would learn a lot of crucial things for its own prosperity (in this case survival). Take this one for example:

It takes 7 years for a coffee tree to mature. Orange trees, palm trees: you don't just suddenly snap your fingers and suddenly get some more palm oil. All of this takes time.

Supply-side economics, common sense, the unemployment rate may go down in the next quarter or two on the back of monetary measures, yet it won't really matter since employment generated does not produce any meaningful physical output.

RmcAZ's picture

Are you serious?

People make unemployment reports way too complicated. Looking at it in its simplest form, there are two factors here: Number of people (population), and people working. The number of people working compared to how many total people there are is going DOWN. How can you take this simple fact, and spin it to make it positive?


DeadFred's picture

The number of workers per household climbed steadily for years as Mom and Dad both got into the rat race to pay the mortgage on their overpriced MacMansion and buy more and fancier baubles 'cause that was the meaning of life then.  The PolyAnna side of me hopes this economic restructuring were going through will at least help a few people out of that hollow lifestyle.  That's the possible good spin.  The undeniable down side is that bauble sales will drop.

Seer's picture

A better measure is how difficult of a time people are having feeding themselves.


What good would FULL employment be if people couldn't afford to eat?  I'm guessing that "employment" during periods of slavery (not like it's vanaished) was pretty high.  Employment numbers are meaningless.

pan-the-ist's picture

Here's another contrarian outlook:  Poor people (in the USA) already have access to too much cheap food.  All this will do make them eat less.  It will probably be good for them.

Dr. Porkchop's picture

People in the US suffer from malnutrition not starvation. Overeating a lot of shitty cheap food is malnutrition too. It costs more to real food, unless you can put down a garden.

ibjamming's picture

So why don't we do that?  Stop the SNAP cards and give them a place for a garden.  I've seen the HUD housing...the gardens can go where the playgrounds are now...when you're poor...should you really have time for play?  It's a life lesson...  This way they work (better health) and they eat better (better health), so they won't have to go to the emergency room as often.  Win win to me...what's the problem?


I'm tired of fat lazy fucks living off everyone else.

Flakmeister's picture

  For shits and giggles, add up all the corporate welfare in the budget and add up all the real welfare, SNAP etc..., now normalize for the number of people involved. The results might surprise you....

naughtius maximus's picture

Aw can't you spare a dime for AIG who is just down on his luck?

Michael's picture

You can't hide the real unemployment number.

The true figure is reflected in the voting booth.

Seer's picture

You've now repeated this.  I could interpret this in several ways, but would like to get your elaboration.

chistletoe's picture

au contraire.


7 million households have been through foreclosure

and now they are  living in their cars and running the engine all night just for heat ....

gasoline demand in the USA is hitting all-time highs ...

just look at the numbers ....