"I Am Jim Rogers And I Support Ron Paul"

Tyler Durden's picture

Ron Paul has another illustrious supporter - Jim Rogers. The Quantum fund co-founder, who has been spot on about pretty much everything for the past 3 years (see Roubini Versus Rogers Is Right Debate for 2010: Investor Jim Rogers thinks gold will double to at least $2,000 an ounce. Economist Nouriel Roubini says that’s “utter nonsense.” As these well-known market personalities duke it out, they’re doing us a favor by highlighting a critical debate: Which is the bigger threat -- inflation or deflation?), not to mention gold (to the amusement of such Keynesian soundbites recorded for posterity as the following: "Maybe it will reach $1,100 or so but $1,500 or $2,000 is nonsense"), and especially inflation (perhaps the only thing that will prompt a chuckle out of Gadaffi and Mubarak these days is someone telling them that their multi-decade reigns are over due to hyperdeflation and plunging food prices), was caught on tape voicing his endorsement of the only sane person who can possibly do something for this country. "In this election if Ron Paul gets anywhere near the nomination I would certainly support him. He is the only one that I've seen in American politics that seems to have a clue about what's going on." Zero Hedge agrees on all counts.

h/t Boiler Room

Comment viewing options

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

If Ron Paul got elected, gold would go to zero.

koaj's picture

most of the market for gold is in jewelry, not currency

who's to say gold would be the currency anyway? why not silver? copper? pig shit? as long as governments and banking cartels cant devalue it at will and rob citizens who cares what the next currency is

Ramboy's picture

Ron Paul is all about strong dollar policy.  Wake up.  

Gold bulls dream of unending money printing.

koaj's picture

but you dont know for certain what the next currency will be backed by if anything. 5000 years of economic law have told us gold but at times in world history salt was more valuable

Ahmeexnal's picture

Did Rogers out himself at a AA meeting?

Part of the 12 step program.

Ramboy's picture

Rogers supports Ron Paul out of moral obligation as if to say he isn't an all out anarchist hoping for financial armageddon.  Having said that, Rogers also would love unending money printing to support his long gold and agriculture positions.  He also knows that Ron Paul will NEVER win.  as he was quoted as saying several years ago.

 

SilverIsKing's picture

So I suppose what you are saying then is that Gold would be available for free.  Is that what you mean by Gold going to zero?  If not, please explain.  Thanks.

spiral_eyes's picture

we ron paul supporters need to make sure keynesianism is fully discredited before ron paul gets into office — it's time for obama to appoint krugman as treasury secretary, and BRING ON ALL THE STIMULUS POSSIBLE. gold going to at least $3,000 an ounce, no recovery, and krugman discredited. what more can we ask for?

write to obama, and all major newspapers. tell them we need more stimulus. tell them ONLY PAUL KRUGMAN CAN SAVE US :D

http://azizonomics.com/2011/08/27/keynes-bernanke-krugman/ 

wanklord's picture

By appealing to tons of bullshit about the Constitution and other patriotic crap, Congressman Ron Paul is able to seduce his brute and ignorant constituency while doing nothing at all in Congress (a clever way to make easy money). He is just part of the establishment while pretending to be a "genuine patriot." Moreover, Dr. Paul is also a mediocre version of one of Leo Strauss' categories of society: the Gentlemen

The gentlemen, are lovers of honour and glory. They are the most ingratiating towards the conventions of their society – that is, the illusions of the cave. They are true believers in God, honour, and moral imperatives. They are ready and willing to embark on acts of great courage and self-sacrifice at a moment's notice.

Besides that, Americans are a bunch of stupid animals easy to manipulate and subdue. The sooner the US economy collapses the better, so these brutes will finally learn NOT to live beyond their means.

Bobbyrib's picture

All Anglos basically rule the same.

JW n FL's picture

 

 

Upcoming US presidential elections-On the Edge with Max keiser-08-26-2011

From: PressTVGlobalNews | Aug 27, 2011 | 6,691 views Loading... http://www.presstv.com/Program/196021.html

In this edition of On the Edge, Max Keiser interviews Alex Jones from infowars.com.

He talks about Ron Paul's bid for 2012 presidential elections.

tmosley's picture

Ad hominem, ad hominem, and...ad hominem.

Yup, that's all the Paul detractors got.

snowball777's picture

Federal spending in anti-government Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) district has quadrupled since 1999 to more than $4 billion, making Texas’ 14th congressional district one of the highest per-capita federal spenders in the country. With $14,707 spent per resident annually, it is clear that Paul’s constant bemoaning of overly-indulgent government spending is nothing but empty rhetoric used to rouse political support for his presidential bid.

azusgm's picture

Ron Paul has said that if his constituents request legislation, he throws it into the hopper to allow it to be debated and voted on one way or the other. He also says that earmarks are ways for the Congress to direct how the money is spent rather than writing a blank check to the executive branch.

macholatte's picture

it is clear that Paul’s constant bemoaning of overly-indulgent government spending is nothing but empty rhetoric

 

Your remark is based upon the premise that Paul is the ONLY person in the Congress representing Texas. You're going to have to do better than that.

snowball777's picture

Is someone else representing his district?

Is he not responsible for the legislation that he proposes?

tmosley's picture

So you would have preferred the President spend that money on more death camps for brown people?  Maybe another secret war?  Or perhaps you'd prefer that he arm all the TSA agents with giant dildos?

Earmarks *gasp* redirect spending that is going to happen anyways.  He could direct a trillion dollars into his district and it wouldn't have an effect on the budget.  RP does NOT introduce new spending bills.  

But hey, fuck em, anyways, right?  Cause the guys in charge now are totally awesome.

snowball777's picture

No, I'd prefer that people who represent themselves as stalwarts of conservatism not behave hypocritically.

I didn't vote for the asshole that gave as TSA or believe that the illusion of security justifies the expense or added government jobs.

 RP definitely votes on appropriations legislation (unless he gave up his position in the house since last I checked).

You'll need something better than "the other guys were doing it too" gradeschool logic.

FlyOverCountryBoy's picture

Actually, Paul has not voted for appropriations legislation for years (maybe decades).  He doesn't approve of most of the budget, so he votes against it.  Once the budget is set, however, that the money is spent.  What is not earmarked is given to the executive branch (Obama and his leftist thugs) to spend.  So, by earmarking Paul keeps at least some money out of the hands of that nut in the White House.  That is pretty patriotic, if you ask me.

 

Thomas's picture

I am a huge RP fan and an official endorser on his previous (maybe current, haven't checked) web site. With that said, his chances are not high and he is getting old. If I listen to his presentations now versus 4 years ago, there is a loss of something. It comes off as sounding more like a politician and less like Ron Paul. He goes off message a little. With all that said, I believe RP and his message. I also believe that gold would go up not down because of a move toward the center of the geopolitical center. 

Here's my one key message: Don't buy the argument that a vote for [fill in the blank] is a wasted vote. Unless your vote actually makes the difference in the entire election, you are voting your conscience and you are standing up and being counted. I would vote for ANY third party candidate over two mediocre mainstream candidates simply to be counted as dissatisfied. 

 

Go Ron. Go gold. To to hell the rest of those criminals in Washington and on Wall Street.

RockyRacoon's picture

I'm 62 years old and Dr. Paul is the only politician who has gotten any of my money... several years running.   The idea of "unelectability" is not the issue.  I gave to allow him the power to spread the message.   Those who oppose him are for nothing, not against him.

Thomas's picture

That's why I gave him both my first and second political donation of my life.

Sun Tsu's picture

Ditto! Supported Ron Paul the first time he ran - a patriot and medical doctor.

Skid Marks's picture

 I gave to allow him the power to spread the message.

Yup! And that makes it worthwhile.

MsCreant's picture

I am not offended by your breasts, in fact they are pretty. I am offended by the pairing of your name "Skid Marks" with the breasts. It is not conceptually or artistically integrated. It hurts my breasts to think about it! (If you have ever had "road rash" you will follow my meaning). Your skid marks are probably the undies variety, I know, I should get over it. But you may not have thought about it like this. Just sayin'.

Some thoughts to consider.

janus's picture

i think i figured it out: you grew up with multiple brothers!

tell me i'm wrong, mscreant.

MsCreant's picture

Sorry sweetness,

I am an only!

janus's picture

sugar,

i may not know the sibling count among the creant chillins, but i can tell you this: i would never, ever use the word 'only' when describing you...the word has a definite limiting factor to it -- i tend to think of you as free from such fetters.  and if you ain't fully free yet, just know that janus always carrys a spare key.

i'm going to get to the bottom of this mystery; when i'm after something i never quit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz8ZRCDpIYg&playnext=1&list=PL54AA9120A76B51A6

and with the weight of a feather it tore into me,

janus

FEDbuster's picture

I am surprised by all the people who still value their gold in FRNs.  You should instead value everything in gold.  How much gasoline can you buy with an oz. of gold, how much does an average house costs in gold, how many gallons of milk, bags of rice, cases of soup can you buy with an oz of gold (or an oz. of silver).  Gold is the currency, how many FRNs you can get for it really doesn't matter.

Restore the Republic, Ron Paul 2012

or

Hasten the Collapse, OBAMA 2012

snowball777's picture

Throw a 1/10 oz gold coin down the next time you fill up outside of the deep south and see if you get any change back in silver; until that changes, gold won't be currency outside the confines of your head.

MsCreant's picture

You don't have any gold? Do you not see it as insurance?

snowball777's picture

I see it as an inflation hedge, not currency, for the reasons stated above and others (like a lack of interest in bank panics).

 

Michael's picture

Dont say that to the people on Ebay buying and selling it all day long.

snowball777's picture

If they're buying it, it's by definition not currency.

RockyRacoon's picture

Which actually proves that the whole system is screwed.  Thank you for pointing that out.

FEDbuster's picture

The same case could be made for Euros, Yen, Swiss Francs, etc...  However you can use your own gold standard to value things (including FRNs).  The dollar will lose it's reserve currency status, but gold will maintain it's role as the ultimate reserve currency.  If gold becomes worthless, you better have your basics (water, food, shelter and the means to protect it) squared away.

tmosley's picture

Gold and silver aren't currency RIGHT NOW.  But they are money.  You would do well to learn the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

snowball777's picture

I'm fully aware of the difference between the two, thanks, but I'm not the one you need to convince.

tmosley's picture

I don't need to "convince" anyone, as I don't need gold or silver to be currency.  My purchasing power rises regardless.

snowball777's picture

You need people willing to take it for goods and services (as per my post above) or your purchasing power is non-existent.

You're not one of those "I can pay for healthcare with chickens" people are ya?

tmosley's picture

Wait, wait, wait, so now you are trying to tell me that gold doesn't have any purchasing power?

Get the fuck out of here.

Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?  There ALWAYS HAS BEEN, and ALWAYS WILL BE a market for gold.  You just have to use a money changer, same as if you had foreign currency.

Stop acting like an idiot.

StychoKiller's picture

The Great Implosion™ will "convince" everyone that Fiat is worthless paper, where they go from there is up to them!

smlbizman's picture

the problem with you snowball is you dont the difference between money and currency......

monoloco's picture

A vote for anyone BUT Ron Paul is a wasted vote, may as well throw a dart at the ballot because the rest of the fucktards will just maintain the status quo. The only way that RP will get on the ballot is for disgruntled libertarian leaning Democrats and independents to register as Republicans to vote for him in the Republican primaries. A vote for anyone else is a vote for more of the same Keynesian shit.

snowball777's picture

Tell me what RP will do, as President, to change "Keynesian" economic policy in the US.

Crime of the Century's picture

Sell Mother Jones to Jim Rogers...

snowball777's picture

So nationalize them...that's not very libertarian...or something that can be done by the executive branch, for that matter.

tmosley's picture

He could reinstate EO 11110, for starters.

He has the power to move the military as he wishes.  He can bring them all home and end that Keynesian "stimulus".  Lots of simple things like that.

e_goldstein's picture

I'll bump you up.

Just hoping that this time he's not (as) controlled as he was last time.

 

Tacos Rule's picture

You bring up some good information, but I agree with Paul on this one.  From the article you linked: Trying to justify his projects in a 2009 Fox News interview, Paul said, "If they are going to allot the money, I have a responsibility to represent my people."  I take this same attitude in my personal life.  For example, I would like it if my state tax dollars didn't go to first time homeowners to pay their closing costs, but I am taking advantage of the program right now.  I see it as the struggle between ideas and reality, having an idea of we want things to be, but accepting what currently is.  My money has already been taken, and the money alloted for the program(s) will be spent regardless of my participation, so why not get some of my money back?